Arguing for the lack of negative evidence is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. That whole approach is unscientific. What would be counter evidence to the flying spaghetti monster? This is one of the weakest arguments one can present.
Quote from: dahangArguing for the lack of negative evidence is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. That whole approach is unscientific. What would be counter evidence to the flying spaghetti monster? This is one of the weakest arguments one can present.i'm simply looking for another reasonable explanation. however what is reasonable to you is obviously not to me.
I"m not sure what this obsession with evidence is
So it
"if we produce more CO2 the temperature should increase, no?" Quote from: hauntedgenius! And since 2005 the CO2 levels increased dramatically. That's not debatable, please don't say that the IPCC reports were altered because there are hundreds that show the same you stubborn idiot.
genius! And since 2005 the CO2 levels increased dramatically. That's not debatable, please don't say that the IPCC reports were altered because there are hundreds that show the same you stubborn idiot.
As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time
Quote from: deft on February 26, 2007, 09:27:02 PMAs for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time
I think you're best bet on this one is claiming that God did it and his work is incomprehensible.
We are now in uncharted territory involving CO2 emissions. Never before have the levels been this high (>400 ppm), and we are seeing an rate of change in temperature like never before.