I'm not really interested in arguing about these items. If you're interested, do some research and reach your own opinions. Particularly with man-made global warming and somewhat less so with AIDS (not as much information is why I say that - and I still question some conclusions that others have reached, but I am very suspicious of many things related to HIV/AIDS).
One reason I don't want to get into a debate here about things of that sort is the wording I quoted above - I'll give an example argument and then stop:
People rarely see "man-made" when they read the "global warming" part. In fact, it gets left off often in discussion for convenience's sake and seems to slip from the conciousness after awhile.
Whether or not I believe that the average temperature of the Earth is rising ("global warming") is completely aside from whether or not I think humans have anything to do with it. It's also a completely different subject as to whether I believe that this automatically means it's bad for the Earth.
And I think just asking if it's humanity's fault, or even if we are contributing, is a pretty big question right there. It could be very important in deciding what should be done, if anything. As would the question of whether or not it's really a bad thing.
For example, if warming is natural, and we are not contributing enough to the warming process to make a dent in reigning in the rise, does it make sense to damage or destroy economies as we force everyone to lower emissions, driving costs up and losing lots of money retooling and using technologies that are so young that they do not yet operate at a net profit (i.e. extra money has to be sunk into it to make it "affordable", probably via expensive subsidies), or do we acknowledge that we would like to live on a clean planet and start looking for real ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels over time? There are actually a number of promising technologies that could do that very thing, but they're nowhere near ready.
The answer to that question depends on the urgency of the need in my opinion. Some would say it depends on whether or not force (political in this case) should be used to get one's way. If you're in the first group, you want to know the facts and make an informed decision related to the effect and the urgency to do something.
The problem I have is that no one represents the truth because both "sides" say the other side is fabricating data, lying, so on and so forth. I have my own opinion based on having read quite a bit on the subject from both sides (both pundits and individuals/teams who don't seem to have an agenda). I also considering myself a man of science (having read science and technical articles in one form or another for most of my life).
I just don't feel like defending my position against either side's extremes of twisting the raw data.
citygirl said:- Man-Made Global Warming (are you saying global warming doesn't exist?)
One reason I don't want to get into a debate here about things of that sort is the wording I quoted above - I'll give an example argument and then stop:
People rarely see "man-made" when they read the "global warming" part. In fact, it gets left off often in discussion for convenience's sake and seems to slip from the conciousness after awhile.
Whether or not I believe that the average temperature of the Earth is rising ("global warming") is completely aside from whether or not I think humans have anything to do with it. It's also a completely different subject as to whether I believe that this automatically means it's bad for the Earth.
And I think just asking if it's humanity's fault, or even if we are contributing, is a pretty big question right there. It could be very important in deciding what should be done, if anything. As would the question of whether or not it's really a bad thing.
For example, if warming is natural, and we are not contributing enough to the warming process to make a dent in reigning in the rise, does it make sense to damage or destroy economies as we force everyone to lower emissions, driving costs up and losing lots of money retooling and using technologies that are so young that they do not yet operate at a net profit (i.e. extra money has to be sunk into it to make it "affordable", probably via expensive subsidies), or do we acknowledge that we would like to live on a clean planet and start looking for real ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels over time? There are actually a number of promising technologies that could do that very thing, but they're nowhere near ready.
The answer to that question depends on the urgency of the need in my opinion. Some would say it depends on whether or not force (political in this case) should be used to get one's way. If you're in the first group, you want to know the facts and make an informed decision related to the effect and the urgency to do something.
The problem I have is that no one represents the truth because both "sides" say the other side is fabricating data, lying, so on and so forth. I have my own opinion based on having read quite a bit on the subject from both sides (both pundits and individuals/teams who don't seem to have an agenda). I also considering myself a man of science (having read science and technical articles in one form or another for most of my life).
I just don't feel like defending my position against either side's extremes of twisting the raw data.