Doesn't science also basically define what's "reasonable", or is that the purview of the philosophers?
Here is a graphical description of changes in temperature in Greenland from AD 500 â 1990 based on analysis of the deep ice core from Greenland. Explain mans role in the temp changes occurring on this chart, both up and down.
By and large, creationists dismiss climate change. You want more pattern? By and large, they are firmly situated on the political Right. As for your Internet findings denying climate change, Neither of us has the legitimate scientific grounding by which to properly evaluate the evidence, so put your sophistry away. On the other hand, the vast majority of independent scientists in this field have concluded the matter is no longer one of debate. Please don't engage in your usual false equivalency exercises where you present a handful of lobbyist sock puppet "scientists" to dismiss the overwhelming evidence and general agreement of its existence. There is science, and then there is the industry of denial. (See Big Tobacco for historical reference.)
LOL! Another pattern- You're the 3rd ET global warming believer who has run away from this simple question. Here are 141 more sock puppet scientists for you, whom I'm sure are all a part of the vast right wing conspiracy to destroy the planet. http://wwatsonweb.co.nz/globa lwarming scientist refute list.htm Now carry on with how it's your GW 'belief' that is correct, just like with religion and all those who claim otherwise are the devil.
wwatsonweb? The pro-smoking people? http://wwatsonweb.co.nz/antismoke.htm The denial industry continues. 'Nuff said.