In my time away from BGP I had the chance to observe this board and the news that happens in the world from a different perspective. No longer was I the rabid liberal who had to slant news to my side; but a honest on looker trying to make since of the world around us. On topic that has been beaten too death on this board caught my interest, Global Warming. Whether Global Warming exists or not is a decision we must all make: both sides have presented there arguments and have made a good in effort in doing so. Therefor no matter what you choose, I ask you a question. Since I am a agnostic leaning atheist I am asked this questions: Wouldn't it be safer to believe in God? If he is real then if you are sincere you get into heaven, if he is not real then nothing bad happens, you are safe either way.

 

I ask the people of BGP this: Wouldn't it be safer to assume that Global Warming exists? If it does then we can take the necessary steps to preserve the earth for our posterity. If it does not exist then no harm no foul, we have again made the earth a cleaner, greener place.

 

Try not to look at this as a political issue, or a attempt to get Anti-Global Warming thinkers to go along; think of it as a decision to take better care of our earth!

In my time away from BGP I had the chance to observe this board and the news that happens in the world from a different perspective. No longer was I the rabid liberal who had to slant news to my side; but a honest on looker trying to make since of the world around us. On topic that has been beaten too death on this board caught my interest, Global Warming. Whether Global Warming exists or not is a decision we must all make: both sides have presented there arguments and have made a good in effort in doing so. Therefor no matter what you choose, I ask you a question. Since I am a agnostic leaning atheist I am asked this questions: Wouldn't it be safer to believe in God? If he is real then if you are sincere you get into heaven, if he is not real then nothing bad happens, you are safe either way.

 

I ask the people of BGP this: Wouldn't it be safer to assume that Global Warming exists? If it does then we can take the necessary steps to preserve the earth for our posterity. If it does not exist then no harm no foul, we have again made the earth a cleaner, greener place.

 

Try not to look at this as a political issue, or a attempt to get Anti-Global Warming thinkers to go along; think of it as a decision to take better care of our earth!

 

That's pretty much my feeling on the subject. It's kind of like, do we know there's a hell? I mean, I have no physical proof, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. :lol:

That's pretty much my feeling on the subject. It's kind of like, do we know there's a hell? I mean, I have no physical proof, but I think it's better to be safe than sorry. :lol:

I feel better by not taking the chance that doesn't exist. I kinda what to cover all my bases - cause I don't want this :fire:coming up behind me.

It takes people, time and resources to resolve any problem and there are many more problems than people, time and resources to solve them. Therefore, any effort spent trying to solve an imaginary problem or effort spent on a problem that is beyond man's ability to resolve is wasted effort. The cost of the wasted effort comes in the form of the real, solvable problems that would have been eliminated if only the effort had been spent there instead.

But with Global warming, it seems as if there wont be a consensus because both sides aren't willing to concede anything. A problem cannot be solved if the problem solvers have their own agenda....

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical. And all the birds in the trees, well theyd be singing so happily, joyfully, playfully watching me. But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible, practical. And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical.

But with Global warming, it seems as if there wont be a consensus because both sides aren't willing to concede anything. A problem cannot be solved if the problem solvers have their own agenda....

To get serious here after my last post, one side isn't willing to debate the subject. They just look down their nose and and tell you it's settled science. That, to me, reeks of fear of being exposed.

To get serious here after my last post, one side isn't willing to debate the subject. They just look down their nose and and tell you it's settled science. That, to me, reeks of fear of being exposed.

 

 

I'm sorry... I see that the "other" side isn't willing to debate. They look down their noses, telling you that you're wacko and off your rocker and naive. To me, that reeks of lack of foresight and lack of concern for the future generations.

To get serious here after my last post, one side isn't willing to debate the subject. They just look down their nose and and tell you it's settled science. That, to me, reeks of fear of being exposed.

 

One side doesn't want to admit that maybe they might have to take some personal responsibility with what kind of cars they drive, and what products they consume.

 

From my research it seems that at this point there is more proof for global warming, but there is alot of research against it. But why take the chance in being wrong?

I'm sorry... I see that the "other" side isn't willing to debate. They look down their noses, telling you that you're wacko and off your rocker and naive. To me, that reeks of lack of foresight and lack of concern for the future generations.

Ummm... they're the ones that wanted to debate, but the Gores of the world said NO, it's settled science. That's just sheer arrogance, as to be expected by the Gore types. We on this board aren't the problem, RM.

One side doesn't want to admit that maybe they might have to take some personal responsibility with what kind of cars they drive, and what products they consume.

 

From my research it seems that at this point there is more proof for global warming, but there is alot of research against it. But why take the chance in being wrong?

How do you know that? Just because they disagree with GW doesn't mean they don't care about the planet. It doesn't mean they don't do their share to to make the air and water cleaner.

From my research it seems that at this point there is more proof for global warming, but there is alot of research against it. But why take the chance in being wrong?

From my research, I find it just he opposite. Tell me this, gooch, what are we going to do to stop solar flares? What do we do to cool the sun down?

How do you stop, the sun from shining? What makes the world go 'round?

To get serious here after my last post, one side isn't willing to debate the subject. They just look down their nose and and tell you it's settled science. That, to me, reeks of fear of being exposed.

But enough about the disbelievers. :lol:

I'm sorry... I see that the "other" side isn't willing to debate. They look down their noses, telling you that you're wacko and off your rocker and naive. To me, that reeks of lack of foresight and lack of concern for the future generations.

What she said.

But enough about the disbelievers. :lol:

 

What she said.

Blinded by science, Im on the run

Blinded by science, where do I belong?

Whats in the future, has it just begun

Blinded by science, Im on the run

 

I worry bout the world that we live in

Im worried by all the confusion

I wonder bout the lies Ive been reading

I wonder where this madness is leading