" If " we are causing global climate change, then...

[Camera Face]

LongTime, I think you're helping make MM's point. You're substituting anecdotes for the scientific method. You are making a flying leap in logic, which is the exact opposite of what the scientists are doing. That said, not all scientists agree on what's happening, or what if anything can or should be done about it. That is why this whole argument just makes my head hurt.

 

[Wideangle]

Let's all wait 100 years and see who's right......

 

[Freddie Mercury]

MM,

The main point of my post was less about the predictions of the future and more about assumptions about the past. That assumption is that what we are observing now is not a natural trend and is unprecedented. The data to suport that simply does not exist.

 

[pre-set]

Why?? Why would you f#$% with something you have no understanding of? Like a bunch of imbiciles playing with a flamethrower...

I actually LOL'd really loud on that one, Dude! Like milk-outta-the-nose loud.

 

[pre-set]

Let's all wait 100 years and see who's right......

Bingo!!!! Right answer here, folks. It's slightly off by an order of magnitude, but it's till the "right" answer.

Let's wait another 11,000 years. At that point, we should be in the midst of another ice age, assuming the glaciation cycles of the last few million years hold true. If we're not, then I'd say that's conclusive evidence that we've altered the planet.

The trouble is, since none of us will be here, there's not much incentive for us to wait that long. We (humans) tend to think of things in terms of fractions of our lifespans, or a few lifespans at most.... But planetary time moves at a much slower pace.


Wideangle is right, though.