[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by albed

When someones actions conflict with their words then only the weakest minds continue to believe their words.

Again, logical fallacy. If someone came up to you and said "it is not good to shoot yourself in the head" and then shot himself in the head, not only would you probably continue to believe their words, you might even have more reason than before to do so.

But, while hardly an absolute, I must admit it is an excellent portrait of Bush and his supporters over the past years.

Originally Posted by albed

You've used it in your argument so if you don't think it's true that would make you a hypo...

I used it in my argument as an inconclusive, because my argument is that it's inconclusive, you just can't stand to hear it apparently. I don't have the luxury to approach information and pretend I'm determining its truth by simply sorting it into two categories according to which political agendists find it more popular. That process obviously must be very satisfying for you in some way, but I'll just have to slag along evaluating the merit of ideas according to their own particular cases and inherent characteristics, sometimes not reaching a primary conclusion at all.

Originally Posted by albed

When something doesn't exist it produces no "proof" of its non-existance, only an absence of evidence. You've become as pathetic as the rest of the religious lamers who demand the same "proof" that god doesn't exist.

It is nonsensical to ask for proof of non-existence, but that's not what I asked and just shows the level of your misconception. Anthropogenic changes to the environment are a fact. A fart is one instance, so we have evidence these changes exist.

This is from the EPA "State of Knowledge" site:

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

• Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
• The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
• A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.
• The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
• Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

What's Likely?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". In short, a number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

What's Not Certain?

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

• Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
• Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
• Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
• Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

You pretend to know that the sum cumulative effect of these changes is negligible and that certain subsequent changes are not occurring and will not occur. Your vague, primitive and virtually unsubstantiated premise seems to be that man will apparently never alter the environment significantly enough to change the weather patterns and elemental distributions which sustain its current climate. This is a theorem exactly as global warming is a theorem, about things which do exist, and one which does produce what some people consider supporting evidence--which you would think might be worth at least mentioning or attributing to some scientist or another if you had indeed arrived at it through the careful personal evaluation of all the conflicting evidence as you claim.

That global warming is alarmism and stupid and thought up by manipulative hypocrites isn't evidence pertaining to your premise, but that seems to be all you got.

Lack of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another. You're still just chattering about your beliefs like a little monkey.

Originally Posted by albed

While your own religious brainwashing prevents you from comprehending it, more rational people understand that the environment in the U.S. and other advanced countries has actually improved significantly in the past several decades in spite of increased industrial activity and this improvement is spreading to other countries.

I suppose if I were religious in any way that would be cutting. As it is in reality I simply understand that global warming is a probability that may have consequences and therefor it is in our best interest to limit our affect on the environment in whatever ways what we can, and you sound rather hysterical.

And 'improved significantly' isn't really science either, is it? Sounds more like a parrotsquawk to me.

Mazer, charming rhetoric and point well taken, but various estimates show that 70%+ of the total global deforestation, for instance, is the direct result of commercial logging, farming and ranching. Greed is absolutely part of the equation. You can "put the argument to bed" all you want, but the reality ain't goin' to sleep.

collage:
...The "poor nations" have already suffered enough from all the humanitarian help they've received.
...Large parts of the world would be much better off today if not for all that "humanitarian" help.
...because humanitarian efforts have been spearheaded by well meaning imbeciles
...Since we can't undo the disruptions all our humanitarianism has caused

LMFAO

You guys are talking about Iraq, right? Glad to see it finally sink in!

HAR HAR HAR