Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
anomalocaris 05-Oct-14, 14:57	Consensus science Everyone always says the debate is settled, 80% of all scientist or 90% of all scientist say this or that. This is especially true when it comes to global warming. Those of us who have the wait and see approach have been called names, mainly deniers, for not buying into this 100 percent. I have never said I think global warming just absolutely isn't happening nor do I know of anyone else here that has. Despite this there can be no "debate" with some on this topic because it has been settled. You are either a believer or a denier. I think when it comes to science the debate should always be open. This article says it better than I ever could have. fuelfix.com
jonheck 06-Oct-14, 10:13	astinkyfart I have no option on this issue other than go along with the experts. If 90 present of those experts say global warming is a go then I am inclined to have 90% confidence. If the number drops to 85% then I guess I need to go along for the ride. My principal argument is, what if it is happening? Is it a good idea to just sit and watch for proof or the lack of proof of the potential end of mankind and other less drastic but still dire predictions. Another of my opinions is that the proposed corrective actions are positive steps for the future even in the company of eventual knowledge that the warmers were wrong, so why not go for it? If the warmers are right then to delay could be disastrous. To act ASAP is a long range win win for just about everyone. We can't expect developing societies in the interim to not want to grab the non renewable resources they need, they have been watching the show from the side lines for a long time. Those societies that have consistently used far more than their share need to enty up for their past greed, and commence leading the way.
anomalocaris 06-Oct-14, 15:07	Jon That is a good strategy, its actually my strategy too, to a degree.
jonheck 07-Oct-14, 01:36	astinkyfart Great, it's to a degree your strategy too. My submission was brief and generalized, lets build on the concept. Peace! Jon
saintinsanity 07-Oct-14, 11:23	consensus science Is a large part of all our understanding of the natural world. Peer review is necessary and it's how we got to where we are today in our understanding of...everything. I don't see any reason to dismiss it now.
saintinsanity 07-Oct-14, 11:38	I read the article. It is true that our global environment is so complex that it is very difficult to model mathematically. But common sense alone is enough to understand the influence humans are having on the environment. How many millions of internal combustion engines release how many billions of tons of fumes every day? Greenhouse gases aside, we have no idea what we are doing to the environment in many cases because we have so many new chemicals being released which haven't existed long enough to study. Any agenda that says we should be free to develop new technology free of any consideration for the environment is not trustworthy. The last sentence of that article sums it up quite nicely. " Its corruption threatens to undermine the potential future advances that will benefit the generations of tomorrow." If we truly care what problems the generations of tomorrow must face, we will not haphazardly cast aside the protection of our environment.
anomalocaris 07-Oct-14, 18:26	Pawn I don't think you and the article say the same thing.
anomalocaris 07-Oct-14, 18:33	Pawn Here is what I am talking about.... something new every day screen.yahoo.com We have been told time and time again to depend on NASA INFO. NASA says the earth has not warmed in 18 years. So don't panic people.

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, online chess puzzles, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.