Originally Posted by Strider
I think the difference is the "non-human, non-anomaly" part of the temperature trend thingie. Though brings into question whether ice-ages or the opposite triggered by outside-forces, like meteors or seismic activity, is part of the nat'ral trend.
I take this view. Physics -> Chemistry -> Life -> Abstract constucts, where humanity is touching the last part, and standing upon the others. Though it doesn't tell me whether meteors are "natural" in this case or not.
I mean the theory that the planet naturally goes through heating and cooling trends (ie, the planet was going through a cooling trend during the ice age, now its moving into a heating trend)...I find this easier to believe than "omg all the cars and burning coal and farting bulldogs are making too much gas in the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect and now were gonna be the next Venus even though theres supposedly a big hole in the ozone caused by the same stuff NOOOO I NEED MORE RENOLDS WRAP!".
However, I don't actually believe or disbelieve either theory, just like I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution or creationism.
I like Kung-Fu.
Posting Permissions
