Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MarineHawk
Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.
As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html
It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html |
If we don't change the manner and degree to which we use our resources, we will suffer consequences. You don't need to understand science for a realization of this. Water shortages and the impending collapse of our seafood supply are two examples that are already present. My position is that notwithstanding the cause of climate change, actions should be taken to halt the problems that are realized from the overuse of our resources.
We lay people can muse about whether or not the fact that the majority of climate scientists are correct as they try to enlighten us that humans are, in fact, contributing to a warming planet. It doesn't matter. Our consumption, along with the increasing consumption of developing countries, will not be sustainable. The results of this are already present.
And DDT. That's just bad. Enviro-whackos got this one right. This compound placed species on extinction watch and caused serious population declines in others. Most of these species were birds, which help clear our environment of these pesky insects. Is it more logical to retain healthy bird/bat populations to control these pests or advocate the use of a harmful compound? As any harmful compound is used, the pest species evolve increased resistance until the compound is nary effective and another toxic compound must be introduced to control the pest species. These compounds do not discriminate between dna profiles. What kills or harms one species, will kill or harm all. It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.