It's like a forest fire. A forest fire can have natural causes, such as
lightning. Or the fire can be caused by someone throwing a cigarette out the window of their car.
Historical global warmings, and the ice ages, were caused by natural imbalances in the carbon cycle, etc. such as volcanoes, etc., but the predominant concensus among the world's scientist is that this one is caused by our use of fossil fuels.
In this a good analogy? Does this help anyone understand why there have been global warmings without the influence of man?
2007-02-08 06:14:14 · 7 answers · asked by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Let me rephrase that last question.
Does this help anyone understand why there have been past global warmings, without the influence of man, but this one could be caused by man?
2007-02-08 06:20:54 · update #1
PRECISELY! That's an excellant analogy.
2007-02-08 06:57:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think its a good analogy. The forest fire is still burning and if you house is in the way well you have to do something.
I think its cool to believe we aren't causing it. But we do know how it happens and its Co2 in the atmosphere and if we don't want it to get hotter we are going to have to reduce Co2 in the atmosphere. So the blame game doesn't erase the fact that it is getting hotter and Co2 is to blame. Whether its natural or man made we still need to figure out ways to stop it.
2007-02-08 06:25:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Skeptic not only question global warming, but also the consequences. Historically whenever we had warming temperatures humans thrived. It is also misleading when they try to make it out that all scientists who believe in global warming also believe in Al Gore's conclusions. The vast majority do not.
2007-02-08 06:40:38 · answer #3 · answered by eric c 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Edit - I forgot to answer your question. YOu make the assumption that the current warming period is being caused by man. That makes the analogy false. Yes, there is scientific consensus that the current warming trend is caused by man, but there are plenty of prominent scientists out there who do not believe it or do not believe there is proof. Now read the rest of my answer. Thanks.
Consensus does not equal proof. Based on consensus from top scientists Eugenics was supported by top leaders including Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Oliver Wendall Holmes and Winston Churchill. It was also supported by the Natl Academy of Sciences, the AMA and the Natl Research Council. Those who tried to debunk the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, ignorant or un-American.
Based on these scientists consensus 39 states approved the forced sterilization of women considered to be from inferior gene pools. The criteria for determining their inferiorty(keep in mind this was based on "Science") identified primarily immigrants and Jews. This practice went on for almost 50 years all based on psuedo science and "Scientific Consensus."
All I ask is proof before we make large decisions.
2007-02-08 06:27:14 · answer #4 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=defects
2007-02-08 06:25:54 · answer #5 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Excellent analogy.
2007-02-08 07:10:23 · answer #6 · answered by Fidel Castro 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that is very good. although some still will not admit it.
2007-02-08 06:18:05 · answer #7 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋