It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
That's a separate proposition that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
If your standard of proof is that everybody that benefits from the subject believes in it, as paddler stated, then you would believe equally in both theories.
By that standard, AGW is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
If paddler is to be believed, all evolutionists would also believe in AGW.
Course, we know where paddler stands:
Originally Posted by DBT
Political agenda may come into it, but the actual issue is carrying capacity of the planet given a population of 7 billion plus consuming resources at the rate of developed nations.
Developing nations have every right to lift the living standard of their own citizens, but the question is: is it ecologically sustainable in the long term? Never mind politics or 'left wing agenda' this is purely and simply about long term ecological sustainability.
