Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket
...you arent approaching the issue with honest skepticism, or at least are only consulting one-sided sources.
|
I am intrigued with the concept of "honest skepticism". There is no doubt to me that I am a skeptic on this and many issues and I am a self acknowledged cynic, but how is a person a honest or a dishonest skeptic. Are you suggesting that I am pretending to be a skeptic?
Regarding one-sided sources, my basic approach is to read the arguments/proof/studies of those making the case for man made global warming and then I challenge what was presented. I mostly do it through questions.
Quote:
|
It certainly isnt any point that science has neglected, at all. There's a lot of science on the topic if you care to take a look, and a lot of it suggests that increases in C02 can have harmful effects on many plants, much same way even minor changes in the levels of O in the atmosphere could hurt us (but hey, how can that be, O is people food!)
|
All I did was make a point by asking a few questions regarding the "feedback loop". I was not trying to prove or disprove anything. Outside of how you look at the "feedback loop", the general tendency is for people to look only at a portion of the "feedback loop". One of my common themes on this subject is we need to know and understand the assumptions used by those creating and using climate models to mold public policy. If some have made the assumption that CO2 levels may approach a point where irreversible damage to the climate occurs and that it is preventable, I think understand the "feed back loop is critically important. If you have a source to studies on this question, I am interested in reading them and would love a source.