On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:11:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.

No there isn't......


Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history,
and are good for over 500,000 years.

Yes, and that evidence shows the extent of the climatic shifts over
that time period. What it does not show is what precipitated those
changes, nor can it predict the additional effects of man's influence
over the environment.



How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that
I exist and not ponder why.


What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder"
their own existence?

Existentialism is more concerned with "how", rather than "why". Well
that also depends on which purveyor of modern existentialism you tend
to follow.

Dave
"Sandbagger"