Date of publication: 2017-07-09 02:42
You 8767 ve never been in any danger of such a world, though, Benjamin. And, certainly, I know that man CAN impact our planet in distinct ways. But, buying into the massive exaggerations that have been proven again and again to have agendas designed in jealousy of prospering societies and not in an altruistic pursuit of 8766 earth healing 8767 is revealed by your commentary. Its nice that you are openminded enough to give tps credit for being exactly correct, even though you didn 8767 t say those very words. But, your dogged clinging to unfounded fears and your tendency to accept a blame scenario that is absolutely baseless is contributory to the problem, not the answers to the actual questions.
I agree with you but, if you want to be taken serious and sound intelligent, please use word correctly, and that would be 8775 You 8767 re 8776 not your. Thank you.
With respect, this webmaster disagrees. I agree that selfishness, greed, and apathy are still major problems to be overcome to prevent future environmental catastrophes, However, I see are other major factors. One is the widespread denial of many observations and conclusions of scientists on a range of topics by many present-day religious and poltical conservatives.
8775 worldwide consensus is pretty strong evidence for reliability. 8776
You mean like when 8766 scientists 8767 thought the sun revolved around the earth and that four humors controlled the body and its emotions? Science has been dead wrong before.
True scientists don 8767 t mind being wrong and don 8767 t seek a consensus. Seeking a consensus is political, not scientific. A scientist seeks evidence for a hypothesis that can be tested over and over again to be true, not the opinions of others (until after the science can be verified through mathematical equations or physical experimentation).
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
Le HDB Challenges reste une originalité désormais bien installé dans le milieu de la course nature. Ce concept unique et innovant propose une nouvelle approche[ ]
As for the idea that we will bring about a massive disaster through gasses released into the atmosphere and such While the scientific community seems to all but agree, as you said they have come up short when it came down to it in the past. I appreciate all that science is achieving, and all we continue to learn, but we still know next to nothing, and our vision of reality is still very limited.
For now I am on neither side, and am taking the wait-and-see approach. I am open to whatever information is discovered on the subject, and will consider any reasonable position presented from either side.
Next is the most common issue that is deforestation. Deforestation is a human influence because human have been cutting down trees to produce papers, wood, build houses or more. If human continuing deforestation, carbon dioxide will concentrate in the atmosphere because trees can absorb carbon dioxide from atmosphere. Besides, human also release carbon dioxide when breathe. Therefore the amounts of millions of people breath have release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If human continue deforestation, human breathing that release carbon dioxide will stay at the atmosphere.
How can children of 5/6 having religion thrown at them be said to have achoice not to listen. They do not yet have adult free will. Ever heard of indoctrination?
Except that this started out as a discussion about SCIENCE which obviously has nothing to do with religion, then zealots starts going off about God and the Bible???? WTF, let the people who want to discuss global warning and the article have their discussion, you want to discuss God and the Bible go to church
No, Dale. what matters and what is relevant is accurate reporting and scientific studies that are open to public analysis. You are a typical liberal. You seem to only want to believe reporting that excites you, that is, articles that support your assumed position, than focusing on studying both sides of the subject in order to arrive at an honest, well researched opinion. An honest person who subjects himself to rigorous accountability and study would not make the claim that you made in your comment.
Man can have proof of wisdom on only the subjects he has studied but to have wisdom on subjects he hasn 8767 t studied than he only have assumptions that have been obtained from what he has heard or read what others have said on the subjects
Oh mannnn, atheism being forced upon us by this negativity about religion . . .. blah blah blah blah .Marx .evolution . go suck it.
polar bears die of starvation for the ice plate floats on which they hunt seals have melted. This makes it extremely hard for they have to swim arduously long distances to hunt for seals in unfamiliar locale. They use up huge quantities of their stored fat on long swims and unsuccessful hunts. Polar ice is melting and blind Freddo knows it.