True. I got no acid rain, no global warming, no god. I'm an atheist I don't believe in death by apocalyps. If we don't act right now.
But do have a tip, google will do fine
edit lol http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...est=latestnews
Himaliya-gate is the IPCC deciding there is consensus because of a collumn in a hiker's magazine by the way, mentioned it earlier. You can't know that because of quality media so I oblige thee
Last edited by Fragony; 09-27-2011 at 11:44.
So, not believing in gods means you don't believe we can ruin the environment? That is a very religious attitude if you ask me.
Publishers of an atlas who fouls up the facts is proof of what? That the science is wrong or that it is a big conspiracy? Gee, if it is the scientists pointing out the error then what to make of it? "Himalaya-gate" is an excellent example of how one should NOT rely too much on non peer reviewed articles. It actually looks like the scientific process works fine as it weeds out mistakes, yet at the same time the really big "mistakes" seem to persist because somehow the deniers are kept down or something.
Your two examples does not show global warming is wrong nor does it provide anything on why the ozone hole and acid rain is debatable. Heck, I'll provide a book for you then: The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling from 1993. It is a great example of bad science, demonizing environmentalism and juicy global conspiracies. You'll love it.
' So, not believing in gods means you don't believe we can ruin the environment? That is a very religious attitude if you ask me'
Sure we can, few nukes will absolutely change the climate. But you still can't just decide temperatures are rising, it really has to happen. And it isn't happening. I don't really care if you believe in god or are absolutely terrified of CO2, just don't pass me the bill as I don't have the patience
Bookmarks