It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth



Executive Summary

An Inconvenient Truth ( AIT ), Vice President Al Gore's book on “The planetary emergency of global warming and what can be done about it,” purports to be a non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science and moral common-sense. In reality, AIT is a colorfully illustrated lawyer's brief for global warming alarmism and energy rationing. It is a J'Accuse hurled at fossil-energy-based civilization, especially the USA, and above all the Bush Administration and its allies in the U.S. oil and auto industries.

We do not expect lawyers to argue both for and against their clients, nor do we expect balance from party men. However, although Gore reminds us (in the film version of AIT ) that he “used to be the next President of the United States,” and concludes the book and movie with a call for “political action,” he presents AIT as the work of a long-time student of climate science, a product of meditation on “what matters.” He thus asks us to expect more from him than the mere cleverness that can sway juries or win elections.

This reasonable expectation is unmet. In AIT , the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda. And in many instances, Gore distorts the evidence he cites.

The present paper, a running commentary on AIT , finds that nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong. An extensive summary of AIT 's distortions is provided in Appendix A.



LINK



I was given this link in another post and have been reading this and its fascinating to say the least. I want to start a thread on just the points in this report and let the Global Warming enthusiasts comment and try to shoot it down. If you haven't looked at it, no matter your take on the matter itself, I highly suggest you read it or at least parts of it. It totally debunks Al Gorism, and uses facts to prove it. We are warming but not any more than usual as respect to the past. If you don't believe me then just check it out.



OK now for those who will not follow the link, which you should do and download the PDF's for later if need be, I have put the summary points here to be debated.





One-sided statements

• AIT never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in alleviating hunger and poverty, extending human life spans, and democratizing consumer goods, literacy, leisure, and personal mobility.

• It never acknowledges the environmental, health, and economic benefits of climatic warmth and the ongoing rise in the air's CO 2 content.

• It neglects to mention that aggregate mortality and mortality rates due to extreme weather events declined dramatically during the 20 th century.

• It neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO 2 emitter: the world's largest economy, abundant fossil energy resources, markets integrated across continental distances, the world's most mobile population.

• The book impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming.

• AIT never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all economic pain for no environmental gain and that regulations stringent enough to measurably cool the planet would be a “cure” worse than the alleged disease.


What about the economic benefits of warming weather? Would that not make winters better for some?




Misleading statements

• AIT implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO 2 levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way: CO 2 changes followed global temperature changes by hundreds to thousands of years.

• It ignores the societal factors that typically overwhelm climatic factors in determining people's risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.

• It implies that a study, which found that none of 928 science articles (actually abstracts) denied a CO 2 -global warming link, shows that Gore's apocalyptic view of global warming is the “consensus” view among scientists.

• It reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused Bush of distorting science, without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a 527 political group set up to promote the Kerry for President Campaign.


What about the CO2 and warming actually being converse to what is considered to be the norm?




Exaggerated statements

• AIT hypes the importance and exaggerates the certainty of the alleged link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.

• Claims polar bears “have been drowning in significant numbers,” based on a report that found four drowned polar bears in one month of one year, following an abrupt storm.

• Portrays the collapse in 2002 of the Larson-B ice shelf—a formation the “size of Rhode Island”—as harbinger of doom. For perspective, the Larson-B was 180 th the size of Texas and 1/246 th the size of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

• AIT presents a graph suggesting that China's new fuel economy standards are almost 30% more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards are only about 5% more stringent.


This one shocked me, the Chinese even have standards? wow, Gore exaggerated but still....




Speculative statements

• AIT blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai, India, in July 2005, even there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for the month of July in 45 years.

• It blames global warming for recent floods in China's Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries.

• It blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a disaster more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors such as population increase and overgrazing.

• AIT warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO 2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050—implausible because coral calcification rates have increased as ocean temperatures and CO 2 levels have risen, and today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO 2 levels hovered above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.

• It warns of “significant and alarming structural changes” in the submarine base of the WAIS, but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are “significant and alarming.” The WAIS has been retreating since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.

• It warns that half the Greenland Ice Sheet could “slide” into the sea, even though the ice sheet sits in a bowl-like depression surrounded by mountains that restrict glacial outflow to the sea.


What about Lake Chad and the Sahara, is that a man made thing also? I am not sure here but it is a thought.




Wrong statements

• AIT claims glaciologist Lonnie Thompson's reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period was “tiny” compared to the warming observed in recent decades. It doesn't. Four of Thompson's six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.

• It claims the rate of global warming is accelerating, when it has been remarkably constant for the past 30 years—roughly 0.17°C/decade.

• It attributes Europe's killer heat wave of 2003 to global warming; it was actually due to an atmospheric circulation anomaly.

• It claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (F-3 or greater), there is actually a downward trend since 1950.

• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring.



As I have been saying, they grew olives in Germany in the middle ages, must have been MUCH warmer then.




posted on May, 15 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
A skeptic`s guide to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the source of the above information, can be found here:

www.sourcewatch.org...



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I have had The Skeptic's Guide to an Inconvenient Truth in my signature block for a few weeks now. It's very interesting reading.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I wonder if it's sheer coincidence that an organization funded by the following organizations:



Aequus Institute
Amoco Foundation, Inc.
Ford Motor Company Fund
Texaaco, Inc.
Texaco Foundation


Happened to find that there's no such thing as Global Warming. I bet their hard science wasn't effected at all by their financial backers, who happen to have a very profitable interest in denying the existence of global warming.

Just like those "scientific" organizations that find no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.




posted on May, 16 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
I wonder if it's sheer coincidence that an organization funded by the following organizations:



Aequus Institute
Amoco Foundation, Inc.
Ford Motor Company Fund
Texaaco, Inc.
Texaco Foundation


Happened to find that there's no such thing as Global Warming. I bet their hard science wasn't effected at all by their financial backers, who happen to have a very profitable interest in denying the existence of global warming.

Just like those "scientific" organizations that find no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.



I don't buy the sceptics argument for the very reason you suggest. They are almost exclusively funded by global energy organisations.

The research showing climate change is happening and is detrimental is almost unanimous.

The claims against it are little more than propaganda and I think they insult our intelligence.

p.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
A skeptic`s guide to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the source of the above information, can be found here:

www.sourcewatch.org...



Very interesting link indeed. Ok so they are funded by those with an agenda, what about the other side? Is it not agenda driven also?

Simple question, no matter the source, why was it hotter in the middle ages than it is now? Why is there no explanation for this?

Thing is, in that report, it raises some very good questions. It does show how Al Gore IS agenda driven. How about debunking the report before slamming the reporter?

Fact is, the earth is warming, on this I agree. Why then is Mars? Can all the power plants on earth be causing that also? What about the history of the earth and the fact that we are technically in an ICE AGE at the moment? What IF we are delaying the next onset of global cooling? What about all the GOOD that power plants are providing and the energy use is doing for mankind?

As I stated in another post, the agenda of these 'tulipwalkers' needs to be looked at with an open mind. What about the ban on DDT and the deaths it has caused.

For those that claim they want the best for humans, it sure seems odd that their combined history does NOT reflect their propaganda.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Interesting development:



Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.



Rever se of opinions in GLobal Warming Debate

A whole list of folks that have changed their minds...hmm, must be a right wing conspiracy....


Notice its a US Senate site....




[edit on 16-5-2007 by edsinger]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103

I don't buy the sceptics argument for the very reason you suggest. They are almost exclusively funded by global energy organisations.

The research showing climate change is happening and is detrimental is almost unanimous.

The claims against it are little more than propaganda and I think they insult our intelligence.

p.


That's simply not true.

There are many scientists who have no connection with any "global energy organizations" and also don't think that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for Global Warming.

The only reason why some people claim "all skeptics are being paid off by global energy corporations" is because they cannot deny the evidence which proves anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
There is a touch of the sensationalist on both sides of the fence, but in really simple terms: You don't sh## where you eat.

If you work for texaco, your not likely to say "CO2 will kill us all".

The equal and opposite reaction.

You don't see hippies driving humvee's.

When the gulf stream stops and hell (sorry Europe) freezes over, everyone can scream about how all these warning signs were ignored and American and China have effectivily murdered billions of people, but then again the sun could fart tomorrow and char grill the whole planet.

On the whole we should be kinder to our planet, and also to our fellow humans. There should be a natural balance. Unlike these arguments which are completely one sided.

Long live common sence!



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChiKeyMonKey
On the whole we should be kinder to our planet, and also to our fellow humans. There should be a natural balance. Unlike these arguments which are completely one sided.

Long live common sence!


Who says what "the natural balance is"?

I have heard this mentioned by some people for a long time, and for a long time, years ago, I actually thought there was this "natural balance"...but there is no such thing.

Change is the only constant. There is no "magical natural balance" that will remain constant. Change has been happening to this planet and every planet that exists.

You can try to blame "the United States" or "China" or any other country for Global Warming, but the fact is that no country can control Global Warming/Climate Change. Countries and societies do have an impact on the environment, but the Global Climate is controlled by forces which mankind has no influence over, such as the Sun, the Earth's magnetic field, and the forces that control the Solar System.

If we weren't seeing Climate Change happening in other planets in the Solar System, and if we weren't seeing that even the Sun is going through some changes which haven't happened for at least 8,000 years, not to mention the changes which the Earth is going through an mankind has no control over, then there would be reasons for believing that it is mankind's activities which are affecting the GLobal Climate. But the truth is that there have been natural factors at work since the Earth started warming that tells us it is not CO2, or mankind which are causing Climate Change/Global Warming.

Even in experiments a doubling of CO2 have been shown to only increase slightly temperatures, by about 0.014C


A change in albedo will alter the absorption and
re¯ection solar radiation. A modifed albedo can result
from all of the factors investigated, although it is obvious
that the 2 x CO2 radiation impact would be minimal as
it is addressed in this study.

..................
The contribution to maximum temperature is small for
2 X CO2 radiation, with a mean of 0.014 °C,
while the
2 X CO2 biology indicates a relatively large cooling
contribution of 0.747 °C.

blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

Even the current warming started at least 260 years before CO2 levels even began to increase. If anything the geological record shows that levels of CO2 always have lagged temperature changes, meaning a raise of CO2 levels is an effect and not a cause of warming.

"The current warming cycle the Earth has been experiencing began at least in most of the world in the early 1600s, well before the "industrial revolution" which has been blamed by so many to be the cause of the current global climatic change.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
This is so true - none of the alarmists want to recognize that the possibility exists that the warming has nothing to do with man.

Funny thing is, what if by adding the greenhouse gases we are delaying an ice age, or at least a more significant one than we already are in.

And NONE of the evironuts even acknowledge the good that electricity and vehicles and such have ADDED to mankind's wellness.

Its a scam I tell you, that the earth is warming may not be, but the cause sure is. I just posted a link of many of the scientists that DID believe in mans role have now backed off after studying the big picture. There are those that will say they are paid off I am sure but the fact remains.

And as far as the source -- its the US Senate.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Even in experiments a doubling of CO2 have been shown to only increase slightly temperatures, by about 0.014C


Are you still trying to mislead people by using Pielke's study? Maybe you should also mention that this study only focused on one single environment and cannot be extrapolated to global effects.

Various global estimates of climate sensitivity are available and all are much higher than the misleading figures you are proposing, best estimate is ca. 3'C (2-4.5'C).

I also see you're still peddling the CO2 is effect not cause logical fallacy. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, of course it causes warming...



[edit on 17-5-2007 by melatonin]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninI also see you're still peddling the CO2 is effect not cause logical fallacy. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, of course it causes warming...


And so does solar activity, and that has a much LARGER effect than CO2.

So are you willing to bet your economic status that Global Warming is MAN MADE and not Solar in nature?

That is really the question.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And so does solar activity, and that has a much LARGER effect than CO2.

So are you willing to bet your economic status that Global Warming is MAN MADE and not Solar in nature?

That is really the question.


Can you see the way in which this is a false dichotomy?

[edit on 17-5-2007 by melatonin]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Oh lordy lordy, I have slipped into another universe and can't get out. I never thought I would ever agree with Edsinger and Muaddib, never mind in the same thread
Now I could be wrong about this but it is my understanding the Earth has only had polar icecaps for 20% of the planets life. So the other 80% of the time there weren't any, so isn't the planet just doing what is natural. I also want to say that I think we are abusing our environment but not the way the "Evironuts" as ed would say have us believe. Was it only about 20 years ago we where being warned about a coming ice age? guess that scam/scare wore off. These people needed a new scam, now where going to melt for the next 20.




Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Snip~~
Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre,
~~
So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials.

~~
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.
Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”
A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.”

~~
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.”

~~
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’”

~~
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

~~
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."

~~
And the list goes on.
U.S. Seante Commity on Environment & Public Works



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
There are many scientists who have no connection with any "global energy organizations" and also don't think that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for Global Warming.

The only reason why some people claim "all skeptics are being paid off by global energy corporations" is because they cannot deny the evidence which proves anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change.


Sigh....this tired arguement again?

No is is claiming "all skeptics are being paid off by global energy corporations". We're specifically addressing "A Skeptics Guide to an Inconvenient Truth", you know, the top ic this thread is actually about which you're trying to again hijack and turn into something it isn't. We don't think all scientists who are sceptical of global warming are paid of by oil interests, but this group of guys clearly is. They openly admit it.

As for your claim that CO2 has nothign to do qith global warming, I'll ask again, as I've asked in so many threads before, whcih you never seem to respond to, please provide a scientific paper, peer reviewed, that claims that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and in no way effects global tempreatures. You won't find it, because it doesn't exist.

And please avoid using the same tired arguement you have in the past, where all you essentially prove is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Because you already know what the response is going to be. Try and use good science.

Lastly, those of us who want to stop global warming, don't think it's an entirely man made event. This is a gross misrepresentation, and an intentional attempt to discredit our views. We think the earth is going through an up cycle in global temperatures, part of the earths natural cycle, and on top of that, manmade pollution is making it worse. It's not the cause, but it's making it worse. Is that clear enough? As for not being able to find the "natural balance", it's quite simple math. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Take our current environment, subtract human pollution, and you've got your natural balance.

current environment - human pollution = natural balance.

not to complicated I hope.



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

And please avoid using the same tired arguement you have in the past, where all you essentially prove is that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Because you already know what the response is going to be. Try and use good science.



Its a greenhouse gas alright, never said it wasn't, but the amounts in PPM would seem to be so small as to not really effect it as so many are saying.

Does the 50% rise in CO2 coming to 400ppm have more effect than the sun being in a 'hot' cycle once again? Which is more likely? Keep in mind that the Martian caps are also melting.

Side thought, Mars is almost all CO2 and global warming is running away there isn't it?



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Oh lordy lordy, I have slipped into another universe and can't get out. I never thought I would ever agree with Edsinger and Muaddib, never mind in the same thread


the sky is falling!



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Does the 50% rise in CO2 coming to 400ppm have more effect than the sun being in a 'hot' cycle once again? Which is more likely? Keep in mind that the Martian caps are also melting.

Side thought, Mars is almost all CO2 and global warming is running away there isn't it?


I guess I don't understand the comparison here. Are you saying that because Mars has a higher level of CO2 in their atmosphere, they should have a higher temperature than the Earth? Because that seems silly, since as far as I understand it, Mars is a bit further from the sun that we are.

I don't think that the 50% rise in CO2 has more effect than the sun being in a hot cycle, but you're missing the point. It is effecting the environment, and there's little scientific dispute of that fact. I wish we could stop pretending that those who think global warming is an issue are blaming mankind entirely for the problem. We're not. We're saying, there's a natural warming cycle right now, and our CO2 pollution is making it worse.

There's nothing we can do about the sun being in a hot cycle, but we can mitigate what you yourself admit is a greenhouse gas, and therefore help curb global warming, and stop mankind's contribution to the problem.


Originally posted by edsinger
Its a greenhouse gas alright, never said it wasn't, but the amounts in PPM would seem to be so small as to not really effect it as so many are saying.


This was more a comment directed at Mauddib, as he tends to quote the same report over and over which he thinks proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Your position, while I may not agree with it, is at least a reasonable and arguable one.



posted on May, 25 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   
As a few have said before I don't want to put words In the mouth of Muadib, but I have read all of these posts and do not recall him EVER saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
He says increasing ppm is not that big a deal in terms of temp increase. But I do not recall him saying that it is not a greenhouse gas.

I try to follow the debate back and forth between Muadib and Melatonin, I also personally know some of the guys who worked on the Summary report for policy makers they talk about. They are equally split in their opinions (at least in private). I am a scientist (sorry for that) and I can see both sides of the debate.

I share Muadibs contempt for Mann and his associates more for the sloppy science involved rather than other potential motivations which I have no knowledge of.
I accept global warming is happening. I accept reducing emissions is a good idea (note I do not say CO2 or any other specific target gas or vapour)

So basically I find myself in the unenviable position of agreeing with both of them 70% of the time.

The only thing I object to is the stiffling of debate that is being attempted by governments on the issue. I understand the need for this becuase you can't raise taxes to fight a problem you believe in if you haven't convinced/ frightened (depending on your view) people they have the problem !!!

One difficulty I see is that many tax payers do not buy into the idea they have a probelm that can be fixed by taxation.

Let's be honest who would not pay a few dollars / pounds / Euros more to help the world deal with the current warming cycle ( shelters housing new technology development). I think we have to do all of this and will gladly pay. I do not see why we have to blackmail people with the threat of an as yet unproven global catastrophe to get the funds..

As both sides of this debate have said, keep it factual, cut the insults and in the case of Muadib and melatonin agree to disagree.

Great work guys keep it up ....

My 2 cents worth.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join