Originally posted by Muaddib
The "desertification of parts of Spain is being cause by the spread of the desert from North Africa into Spain... Mankind has nothing to do with it,
it is part of a natural process, and nomatter how much you or anyone else wants to stop it it is going to continue as long as Climate Change continues
happening.
Well, by making this statement, you disagree with most scientists and historians, as pointed out in my first post. You're welcome to disagree, but
I'd just like t established that the vast majority of environmental scientists know the desertification of southern Spain was caused by deforestation
and the destruction of the top soil in that region.
Originally posted by Muaddib
I never said that, but combating pollution is not going to stop Climate Change and that's a fact some people don't want to accept and want to
believe they can control the Earth and it's climate...
Well, sorry to tell you that we can't. The major factors that control the climate are out of mankind's hand and there is not one thing we can do to
stop it.
Agreed. The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. The difference is, for some strange reason, you don't believe that humans can
make it either better or worse to some degree. No, we can't stop it all together, but if we can mitigate the damage, or lessen it even by a small
amount, it would be worth the effort.
Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, if anyone was "mocking and insulting" anyone else around here it was you... Making false accusation, and then claiming you are the victim
doesn't change the fact that it was you making the "insulting and mocking".
I apologize if you feel like I'm mocking you. I don't think I have, and it certainly is not my intent to do so, but I will call you on any bad
arguements or contradictory logic.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Weren't you trying to blame mankind for the spreading of the deser5ts from North Africa into Spain?...
Yes, I did, and I stand by that fact. But in reference to global warming, I never claimed it was an entirely man made phenomenon, and I doubt there
are any that do. Perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps you're putting words in my mouth. The key word that is used is "contribution" here. We
believe that mankind is "contributing" to the already existing problem of global warming. Not causing, but making it worse.
Originally posted by Muaddib
i guess believing that "mankind is at fault is not seeing the world in extremes"?.... Despite the fact that such climatic changes have been
happening for billions of years and for most of that time mankind was not around....
Once again, I'd just like to emphasize "contributing" to global warming, not causing it altogether. Making it worse. I hope I've been clear on
this point.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Really?... I though that CO2 was an evil greenhouse gas which is causing Global Warming... if that was true then CO2 should have been higher when
temperatures have been higher in the past....yet they are not...
Again, this is completely faulty logic, as you are assuming CO2 is the only cause of global warming, and no one is claiming that. it is one of the
many causes of global warming. Many, many causes. So again, that's why its faulty logic to asusme that when the global tempurature rises, CO2
levels must be higher. It's faulty logic. We're not saying it's the only contributer to global warming, it's one of the contributors, and it
happens to be the one that humans contribute to the environment the most (I'm not saying humans are the largest contributors, but that of all the
greenhouse gases thrown into the environment by humans, CO2 is the largest, and therefore the one we can cut back on the most). Which is why I think
this analogy:
Originally posted by Muaddib
Originally posted by Athenion
That's like saying when I was six, and I got sick from the chicken pox, it wasn't caused by the flu, therefore, everytime I get sick, it can't have
been caused by the flu. It's terribly flawed logic.
......You should really try to find some better analogies when you are trying to make a point.....
I think the analogy works quite well. You're assuming that the sickness in our environment (global warming) has only one cause, CO2, and therefore,
if the environment was sick in the past, and no CO2 was there, CO2 must not cause global warming. It's terrible logic, and doesn't make any sense.
In fact, you prove that point further on in your post:
Originally posted by Muaddib
i just gave several research excerpts which actually state there were warmer times in the past yet CO2 levels were lower than today...
Let's see what else... that and the fact that temperatures were increasing since the early 1600s and CO2 levels did not increase until 260 years
later... Plus the fact that for example the Sun's output has increased during the past 60 years more than during the last 8,000 years... The fact
that the Earth's magnetic field has not been as weak as it is now for more than 770,000 years.... The fact that we are seeing Climate Change/warming
in other planets in the solar system...
So what about the warming period in the dark ages? The Sun's output wasn't increasing back then, therefore according to your logic, the suns output
has no effect on global warming. Do you see how flawed this logic is?
So once again, so I'm clear, I'd like you to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper showing that CO2 does not contribute to global temperature
increases. You're not going to be able to find one. Not a scientific paper that shows global temperature was high while CO2 was low, because that
is flawed logic, as I've pointed out as many times as possible in this post. I want a scientific paper showing specifically that there is no
Correlation between CO2 and Global Warming.
