Verified answer

The scientifc community is full of people saying whatever someone who pays them to say. The NYT is the worst source of news since it is either made up or completely out of context to bias the publics opinion.

Currently there are over 17,000 scientists who say there is no global warming. The consensus is that what we are seeing is part of normal cycles. Also they state emphatically that there is nothing we can do to change the patterns. Keep in mind there were no automobiles or people during the last warming phase.

Please read the links to improve your insight into what is really going on.

Since the moment our planet became a planet there has been CHANGE, some minuscule and some gigantic, but still Change.

As creatures we are in constant Change and we will continue in Change until we die, when as a living force we stop Changing.

In spite of the fact that CHANGE as been the primary force of our existence, we have managed to develop creatures of all kinds in our oceans, land areas and in our skies,..and we have survived.

Nature has done a marvelous job of managing CHANGE, and if we leave her alone she will no doubt continue to provide a living area for all of us.

Let's give the old lady a chance before we start to tamper with the many processes She has at her disposal. Old Ma Nature is here to serve us, let's let her do her job.

She has an Objective for us. Whether she intends to reach that objective in ten years or ten-million years, it's her project, not ours.

So, for decades scientists all over the world have been saying "global climatic upheaval". And if you read the articles, they all pretty much point to the same cause, even if they disagree on exactly what the outcome will be.

So, if the same cause applies, and some change will likely occur, what harm is there in trying to address and mitigate the causes?

Evolution is not extra of a faith than the periodic table or Newton's gravitational theory. In different words: that could be a scientific type with empirical data, and not a faith in any respect. inner maximum faculties (examine: faculties that aren't getting investment from any of the taxes I pay) can instruct despite they want. yet PUBLIC faculties ARE (and could) be secular. >>If Evolution is a actuality, then why do no longer Christian >>faculties have it?????? I went to a private Catholic severe college the place I found out approximately evolution in my biology type. And the instructor become a Xaverian Brother. of course, evolution did no longer conflict along with his very own life-long dedication to Christianity! He become a technological know-how instructor who taught technological know-how in technological know-how type, no longer non secular scripture erroneously taught as geological background. while you are going to objective to instruct biology with out evolution, you may to boot replace chemistry instructions with alchemy and "the 4 factors", assume the earth is flat for a geography type, and instruct a working laptop or laptop type with an abacus.

Don't try to convince them. They have heard it all and are still convinced the climate never changed before WWI.

Definition of 'Credible Scientist': Any person that believes any change in weather is caused by man.

Activist: Any person that is not convinced by 'Credible Scientists'.

never believe anything you read in the jew york times