[alfredo]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I don't think the Global Warming stuff is total hokum. But like you, I do question what Gore's work has to do with the Peace Prize. It could very well be that there was a lack of other viable candidates. At least folks like Kissinger and Arafat were working on efforts related to stopping actual fighting at the time they won their awards. Gore's work has nothing to do with that.

You see wars over oil, soon you will see wars over water. Why do you think Bush and Rev Moon has bought land ontop the worlds' largest aquifer in Paraguay?

Higher temps means dryer soil. You think the migration from Mexico to the US is bad now, just wait for the heat to dry out even more of the marginal farmland in Mexico. Atlanta is in a crisis as we speak. They have maybe 80 days of water left in their reserviors

Also many will have to migrate from coastal areas, putting stress on other regions. Bangladesh will be devastated. They will have to move to higher ground. Same with the people of Florida.

Diseases only found in the tropics will move north and south into regions where people have not built up resistance.

[Snow-i]

the severe droughts being seen in many part of the US are the result of a NORMAL climate pattern known as la nina.

Even taking an introductory class on climate patterns worldwide would teach you that.

[alfredo]

La Nina hasn't caused the droughts that have been lasting years in this part of the country. If anything they will make it worse.

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/drmon.gif

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...p_18oct07b.jpg

La Nina has not caused the loss of snowpack world wide.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

the severe droughts being seen in many part of the US are the result of a NORMAL climate pattern known as la nina.

Even taking an introductory class on climate patterns worldwide would teach you that.

Severe droughts on a small-cycle basis may be nina/nino based; the existence of long-term droughts, however, are not explained by this cycle.

Identifying the causes, of course, are more difficult, but there doesn't seem to be any argument against climate change as one of these. From there it's even more difficult as to whether that climate change stems from man-made sources or not....

greg

[Snow-i]

the burden of proof lies in proving the theory correct (ie climate change)

It is utterly scientifically irresponsible to assume that this is climate change related simply because there is no other theory with more evidence behind it

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That statement shows that you know very, very little about how science works.

Why?

Because one of the first maxims of science any student will learn is that the scientific method does not says what is right; it says what is not right...

What science does is come up with explanations which FIT BETTER than all the other explanations available. It studies current knowledge, and identifies what does not work in a situation in applying that knowledge...and then it comes up with new knowledge which would work in that situation. Your legal-like cries for burden of proof are shockingly misplaced in a scientific context.

You are living in the dark ages. If you had your way, the earth-shattering theories of Science Gods™ such as Aristotle, Galileo, or Newton would have been laughed out the door...because none of them had anything approaching a burden of proof, but their explanations we used simply because they fit so much better than anything else available.

In fact, the more I think about how you could make such a statement, the more disgusted I become.

greg