Quote:
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
. . . The weather science folks have a lot of suggestive numbers, but since they can't do experiments we won't know for sure for several hundred years.
On the bright side, conservation-energy efficiency-alternative energy-water conservation are win win situations that can produce jobs that can't be outsourced(someone has to actually install insulation,solar panels).Using power plant CO2 to increase plant growth is another idea being worked on.
. . .
|
The lack of "experimental verification" is one straw the creationists continue to grasp. They are happy with 'unnatural selection' when breeding critters while they continue to harp on the absence of a species change, one that results in critters that can not breed. Of course it always reminds me of the St. Bernard in heat and Chihuahua stud. But the creationists continue to rail against evolution.
I have a little different take on global warming based upon the finite limits of fossil fuel. IMHO, our human populations are sustained by the availability of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. Regardless of the average earth temperature, when fossil fuels peak and begin declining, our ability to produce and distribute food will significantly fall off.
From what I can tell, evolution seems to advance in spurts from isolated populations under stress. Whether that stress is from higher global temperature and loss of food production (or any other disaster,) the effect will be to toss "God's dice" and we may see a species change.
In the meanwhile, efficiency has always been my favorite goal. Fighting the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is a never ending task . . . even if it does win in the end.
Bob Wilson