| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2007 02:41:45 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Seriously, you trust scientists in developing highly complicated digital cameras, but not in plotting some sea temperatures? Are you kidding? |
I do not think cameras are anywhere near as complex so I guess we can trust them...:P |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:40:13 PM · #152 |
So, I've been following this thread for the last day or so. Just thought I'd pipe in for a minute. As has been said numerous times, it's climate change, not global warming. Temperatures are just one factor in the whole situation. There are some theories that a rapid shock of melted ice into the Atlantic could screw up the Gulf Stream and actually cause significant cooling in Europe. I don't know how widely accepted that idea is though.
But I just want to point out a couple other things. The US military, along with NASA, is now one of the most significant funders of biofuel research. Along with the major aviation manufacturers and a number of airlines, they are going to begin testing on bio jet fuels in 2008. Pretty cool eh?
Also, several people have mentioned that climate change is just an excuse for individuals to gain power. But in fact, a primary goal of many of those seeking climate change is to incorporate the minorities into the change. They know hybrids are expensive. That's true of any new technology. But there are also companies forming that employ inner city youth for things like installing solar panels and green rooftops. If you want to see more about this, look up the Bioneers Conference that happened nationally a few weeks ago.
In any case, I don't understand how people don't want to see these changes. Here in Salt Lake, we get the infamous inversion every winter. It traps everything in the valley. My eyes dry out and start to burn for a month. And it has been positively linked to cause numerous serious medical problems.
I personally give a lot of credence to what the scientists are saying. The only personal agendas that I have experienced in the scientists I know is to keep the oil companies from buying their research to be permanently filed away somewhere.
And finally, it bugs me that people always have to bring up Al Gore. He's a tiny piece of the bigger picture. There are people all over the world doing tremendous things to promote sustainable lifestyles, and living wages for their employees.
Anyway, that's it for that rambling rant. Sorry for several poor sentences in there too. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 04:17:26 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
THe scientific community has pretty much debunked global warming.
Only a select few with ulterior motives and the soap box get the grease. |
So the IPCC, American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society and others are all just shills in this shell game ? |
Well, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- so that's like trying to get true information about abortion from NARAL. They have a vested interested in perpetuating the lies.
And again, the majority of scientists dismiss claims of man-made global warming -- this has been cited in article after article so you can look it up yourself if you want to see the truth.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 05:15:06 PM · #154 |
Hawkeye, I'd think your argument would be pretty easy, because I'd figure we'd have temperature data for pretty well the entire 6,000 year history of the world...
To speak on global cooling. The theory had some merit, but was incomplete. The idea was that we were putting so much particulate matter into the air we would cool the earth because less sunlight would reach the ground and more would be reflected back to space. There is actually a fair amount of evidence to support this (now called "global dimming"), but the theories did not account for the CO2 that was being exhausted along with the particulate matter. So while global dimming is likely occuring, the warming effect of CO2 is larger and the net result is warming. See this graph from the IPCC (or perhaps look for a recent NOVA episode on global dimming).
[thumb]614896[/thumb]
Note the "total aerosol effect" which represents both the direct reflection of sunlight and the increased cloud cover from clouds forming around particulate matter causes a net decrease in the radiative forcing.
It's sorta scary really because we have done a better job of cleaning up particulate matter than CO2. The truth may be we had some brakes on the system which we are now releasing in our cleanup effort and we'll see warming jump to a another rate of increase.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 17:16:01. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 05:15:36 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Seriously, you trust scientists in developing highly complicated digital cameras, but not in plotting some sea temperatures? Are you kidding? |
Engineers. Different than scientists.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 05:30:35 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
The evidence is based on knowledge of the climate system as a whole, from understanding the variables that contribute to climatic patterns, and from recent advances in understanding the nature of non-linear systems.
Recent temperature trends are significant because they validate the models and show that things are behaving how we expect. AGW theory is not, not, not, an empirical extrapolation of measured temperature trends.
|
Are the models better than they used to be? Got any, umm, scientific evidence of this?
Sure, temp trends now validate the models, but 30 of the last 60 years they were in opposition to the model. Hmm...why? Can the model explain this?
If the US can ban HFC's and reverse a hole in the ozone in just 20 years, then that strongly implies man has a huge impact on the atmosphere. For good and bad. So we can fix the carbon issue in 20 years...or does our 100 year use of carbon have less impact than thought?
Where are all the big nasty hurricanes we were supposed to get this year? If the ocean is heating up and that fuels tropical storms and hurricanes, why such a mild non-event year?
El-nino/nina were a big deal 10 years ago..now I hear nothing. Never heard of them until that time either. Why not? Where'd they go?
I think scientists do the best they can, but it's all (educated) guess work.
How many photographers are on this forum? We can't reach much of a concensus on JPG vs RAW! How can we expect thousands of individuals with varied training and god knows what agendas to conclude anything?
I saw NOVA last week about the Marathon. Sedentary people take up running and they lose no weight, no change in BMI. The doctors (scientists?) say it's all food. The foodies say you must excersize...and that's a damn site less complex that the global environment!
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 05:33:11 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And again, the majority of scientists dismiss claims of man-made global warming -- this has been cited in article after article so you can look it up yourself if you want to see the truth. |
What a huge statement to make with out any proof.
According to a quick search Wiki I find 22ish that meet your definition. Seems to me to be FAR from the "Majority"
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
so you can look it up yourself if you want to see the truth. |
LMAO Your truth or the real truth?
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 17:34:39. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:08:08 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So we can't measure the change but it's enough to warm the earth? Just making sure that's what you are saying. |
That's exactly what I'm saying. We've had solar measurement and observation tools for how long? Seriously, 3-4 decades? As I stated clearly, it's a matter of not only precision, but temporal perspective.
It's not that I doubt we do affect some environmental change with our bad stewardship, but realistically, we just don't have the technology or the perspective to make the call as to how much.
Remember the micro-environment Biosphere 1? Remember how miserably it failed, due mostly to carbon monoxide emitting microbes in the soil? We can't manage a dome. Do you seriously believe we know what is happening globally? |
I was unaware of this graph in the IPCC report until now. It looks like they can and do measure solar irradiation changes. The longest series is 30 years. A few things to note:
1) the variance is small, about 2/10th of 1% from maximum to minimum.
2) It doesn't follow the general acceleration of warming since the 1980s.
[thumb]614915[/thumb] |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:16:03 PM · #159 |
What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Is that all better now? or did people realize that 20 years of monitoring doesn't mean anything compared to the millions of years it was there.
How accurate is the CO2 tests from the ice cores? That's a theory, isn't it. Or did someone go back in time and take some samples.
Measurement devices in the past weren't as accurate as they are now, so you can't really look at that data either.
I like that one scene in Monthy Python's and the Holy Grail where the woman weighed the same as a duck, so therefore she must be a witch. I am sure that joke meant that any scientific equipment back then wasn't something that you can depend on.
Anyway, there is a problem. We need oil to live our comfortable lives and we don't want to pay a lot for it. Oil shale and Alaska. We have it all right here in the US. More than enough to get us through the 20 years...and keep the prices the same. Use that extra money to find cleaner and renewable sources of energy.
Drill Alaska. Keep those V8's humming. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:33:20 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Are the models better than they used to be? Got any, umm, scientific evidence of this?
Sure, temp trends now validate the models, but 30 of the last 60 years they were in opposition to the model. Hmm...why? Can the model explain this?
|
First - I've been very respectful throughout this thread, as I think you recognize. I would appreciate the same in return. Taking your question as a serious one, yes, the models are much better than they used to be. Ways in which models have improved:
1) finer spatial and temporal resolution
2) better treatment of the atmospheric boundary layers
3) Much improved data on land use, land use change, soil characteristics
4) Increased availability and accuracy of data (including paleoclimatic data for validation)
Since 1990, for instance, accuracy of modeled long wave radiation has been improved 4-5 fold (residuals of 6-8 W/m^2 reduced to ~1.5 W/m^2, see The QME AERI LBLRTM: A closure experiment for downwelling high spectral resolution infrared radiance. D.D. Turner, D.C. Tobin, S.A. Clough, P.D. Brown, R.G. Ellingson, E.J. Mlawer, R.O. Knuteson, H.E. Revercomb, T.R. Shippert, and W.L. Smith. 2004. Journal of Atmospheric Science, 61, 2657-2675.) You don't get your new climate model published unless it shows an improvement over earlier ones.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
If the US can ban HFC's and reverse a hole in the ozone in just 20 years, then that strongly implies man has a huge impact on the atmosphere. For good and bad. So we can fix the carbon issue in 20 years...or does our 100 year use of carbon have less impact than thought? |
Unfortunately, ozone and CO2 are very different problems. CO2 has a halflife in the atmosphere of 75-100 years; the CFC's that were causing the ozone hole are no longer increasing in the atmosphere, and their levels are expected to begin falling. These were specialized chemicals used in a handful of industries that were easily replaced with (so far as we know) less harmful alternatives. We're not so lucky with CO2. Also the ozone hole is a simple process (CFCs decay to chlorine under UV radiation, chlorine reacts with ozone) with a fairly linear reaction - the climate is not; there are threshold effects that we don't understand which mean we could shift into a different stable climate regime that is extremely unfriendly to human culture. Non-linear systems can be nasty, and reversing changes to them is sometimes like trying to unscramble an egg.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Where are all the big nasty hurricanes we were supposed to get this year? If the ocean is heating up and that fuels tropical storms and hurricanes, why such a mild non-event year? |
There were a handful of mild predictions (yes, AGW might increase the likelyhood and severity of hurricanes) that were spun in the media ("SUVs caused Katrina!"). Climatologists know the world doesn't work this way. But scientists, by their nature, are prone to speculation (it's our job) and journalists tend to report the most exciting parts of speculations without the caveats the scientists include. Try talking to a climatologist sometime.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
El-nino/nina were a big deal 10 years ago..now I hear nothing. Never heard of them until that time either. Why not? Where'd they go? |
El Nino/La Nina (commonly known in the scientific community as the El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO) became a big deal in the media starting around 1982 when a very strong El Nino event occured and was recorded by newly developed ocean buoys. A coupled atmosphere/ocean model that could predict el ninos was developed in 1986. Since then improved instrumentation and modeling has made forecasting better.
We're currently in a La Nina event. It didn't go anywhere; we just grew to understand it and the news media lost interest because it wasn't new.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I think scientists do the best they can, but it's all (educated) guess work.
How many photographers are on this forum? We can't reach much of a concensus on JPG vs RAW! How can we expect thousands of individuals with varied training and god knows what agendas to conclude anything?
I saw NOVA last week about the Marathon. Sedentary people take up running and they lose no weight, no change in BMI. The doctors (scientists?) say it's all food. The foodies say you must excersize...and that's a damn site less complex that the global environment! |
That's fine. But while yes, there's disagreement in the scientific community (we love to argue - the idea that we're all in collusion is hilarious) the level of disagreement you're implying is like saying we don't agree on which end of the camera points forward - whereas the real arguments are on details like whether the 50mm f/1.4 is better than the f/1.7 - important to those who care a lot about the details, but insignificant to the grand story which is that the lens points out. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:39:00 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by TonyT:
What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Is that all better now? or did people realize that 20 years of monitoring doesn't mean anything compared to the millions of years it was there. |
"The Antarctic ozone hole demonstrates large-scale, man-made affects on our atmosphere. Surface observations now show that human produced ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) are declining. The ozone hole should soon start to diminish because of this decline...
Full recovery to 1980 levels will occur around 2068 and the area will very slowly decline between 2001 and 2017. Detection of a statistically significant decrease of area will not occur until about 2024."
source
Originally posted by TonyT:
I like that one scene in Monthy Python's and the Holy Grail where the woman weighed the same as a duck, so therefore she must be a witch. I am sure that joke meant that any scientific equipment back then wasn't something that you can depend on. |
Aren't you using the same logic by assuming that none of the points you make about accuracy are taken into consideration by the thousands (tens of thousands?) researching the issue?
Why is it that global warming sceptics asume that climate scientists are complete morons? I mean, science has put a man on the moon (yes, it has :p), created jets that can fly 3 times the speed of sound, cloned sheep, created machines that can examine our insides in minute detail and create bombs powerful enough to wipe out small countries. And yet people think that the climate science guys can't figure out accurate temperature estimates for the past.
The earth is flat, too. Really. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:43:16 PM · #162 |
Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims
McCright, AM; Dunlap, RE
Social Problems [Soc. Probl.]. Vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 499-522. 2000.
The sociological literature on global environmental change emphasizes the processes by which the problem of global warming is socially constructed. However, the opposing efforts to construct the "non-problematicity" of global warming advanced by the conservative movement are largely ignored. Utilizing recent work on framing processes in the social movements literature and claims-making from the social problems literature, this paper analyzes the counter-claims promoted by the conservative movement between 1990 and 1997 as it mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. A thematic content analysis of publications circulated on the web sites of prominent conservative think tanks reveals three major counter-claims. First, the movement criticized the evidentiary basis of global warming as weak, if not entirely wrong. Second, the movement argued that global warming will have substantial benefits if it occurs. Third, the movement warned that proposed action to ameliorate global warming would do more harm than good. In short, the conservative movement asserted that, while the science of global warming appears to be growing more and more uncertain, the harmful effects of global warming policy are becoming increasingly certain. In order to better understand the controversy over global warming, future research should pay attention to the influence of the conservative movement by identifying the crucial roles of conservative foundations, conservative think tanks, and sympathetic "skeptic" scientists in undermining the growing scientific consensus over the reality of global warming.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:44:46 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by TonyT:
What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Is that all better now? or did people realize that 20 years of monitoring doesn't mean anything compared to the millions of years it was there. |
Read my post above. The ozone hole was the subject of probably the single most effective public/private partnership in the history of environmental problems. It is the poster child for how well things can work. There were a few industries that used CFCs, there were economical alternatives, and there was not a concerted disinformation campaign waged. The hole still appears every spring, but is expected to heal in about 50 years.
Originally posted by TonyT:
How accurate is the CO2 tests from the ice cores? That's a theory, isn't it. Or did someone go back in time and take some samples. |
No, it's not a theory - I've defined theory earlier. It's a dataset, and a very good one. The air trapped in ice bubbles is the same air that was trapped in there when they formed. The numbers one gets from those are corroborated by independent measurements, such as coral growth.
Originally posted by TonyT:
Measurement devices in the past weren't as accurate as they are now, so you can't really look at that data either. |
Huh? No, they weren't as accurate, but we know what they were, and we know how accurate they were. Do you plan to throw away all data over 10 years old? Or just data that bothers you politically?
Originally posted by TonyT:
I like that one scene in Monthy Python's and the Holy Grail where the woman weighed the same as a duck, so therefore she must be a witch. I am sure that joke meant that any scientific equipment back then wasn't something that you can depend on. |
I am sure it was just a joke, but regardless it has little bearing on the current question.
Originally posted by TonyT:
Anyway, there is a problem. We need oil to live our comfortable lives and we don't want to pay a lot for it. Oil shale and Alaska. We have it all right here in the US. More than enough to get us through the 20 years...and keep the prices the same. Use that extra money to find cleaner and renewable sources of energy.
Drill Alaska. Keep those V8's humming. |
(a) oh well, we want the oil, so f*** the world. That's great.
(b) Oil is a global fungible commodity. Oil from Alaska goes into the same big global market as oil from Saudi Arabia. The idea that we can somehow buy "US Oil" is, I'm afraid, also a politically motivated myth. The oil companies don't give a rat about the US except as a market. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:47:22 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
The earth is flat, too. Really. |
AHA! I knew it! |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:53:35 PM · #165 |
GAWD, I hate these debates, but they are like train wrecks.
I'll just throw in my measley opinion. I have heard much of the "evidence" on both sides and to my thinking, more questions and concerns have been raised by opposition to the theory and have gone unanswered and mainly just dismissed.
I am interested in the DEBATE - answers to the evidence presented on both sides - not avoidance or dismissiveness on either side. I have yet to see a rebuttal to specific points brought up by the opposition to the theory - I mostly only see attempts to discredit the sources or blanket statements to the effect of "the opposers are in the tiny minority" - an irrelevant and even arguable "fact" in and of itself.
I would like to see a point by point rebuttal to the evidence presented in this video report (posted by someone else in this thread). From what I have seen, it is the GW alarmists that are behaving most ignorantly in this debate. Lots of examples of in this thread alone of attacks on people for not buying into the whole thing.
As for the statements like "What can it hurt to do things that are good for the environment" etc - I may have missed it, but I have not seen anyone who has stated an opinion that they don't buy the theory that they prefer not to recycle and would rather emit more carbon, etc. Of course everyone is willing to make an effort to reduce emissions, cleanup the environment, etc. What can hurt though, is well-intentioned people "thinking" they are doing something about it by buying carbon credits or supporting some organization which may be doing noth actually may be doing nothing, or worse- may be doing more harm than good. Maybe another debate, but I had heard that the amount of energy it takes to produce bio-diesel fuels is twice as much (or maybe just a lot more) than the actual fuel it saves. I read that to mean it was doing twice as much harm to produce a gallon of bio-fuel as the harm produced by just burning fossil fuels. Maybe it's just propaganda by the oil companies - maybe not. To me the important thing is not that I think I am doing the right thing, but that I actually am doing the right thing. This doesn't seem to matter to many people - just go with the popular idea of what is "good" for the environment, humanity, etc. and join the mob attacks on anyone who mentions the possibility that the "emperor might be naked" so to speak.
I try also to be cautious of motives in listening to the sources of information - but I do not automatically dismiss them if there is some loose or indirect affiliation with a vested interest. It seems to me that there is much more vested interest on the side of the global warming alarmists than on much of the opposition and I am not convinced there is a clear majority of scientific opinion on either side of the debate.
That's about it from me. I'll just keep an eye on the debate as if it were going to produce anything other than moderate entertainment.
ps: I just love comments like the one about homosapiens being arrogant or people saying they are ashamed to be human. Either clarify if you're talking about the humans that are allegedly destroying the planet or the humans that are allegedly saving it or feel free to just have your DNA altered at the first opportunity - you may even have a better shot at survival going back to being a single celled creature.
ooh, may have gotten a little snarky at the end there. I'm such a human. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:53:37 PM · #166 |
| Kudos to eamurdock, chip_k, and pidge for citing articles. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:10:44 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
GAWD, I hate these debates, but they are like train wrecks... |
sorry for not quoting your post in its entirety, but a great piece, i enjoyed reading it a lot! I sympathize with your plea for an informed and unbiased debate,and I could not agree more that it is seems an almost impossible thing with this highly politicized issue (as with almost any other issue these days). I wish I could contribute to it myself, but I am no expert in this area. The only point I have an issue with is that
"It seems to me that there is much more vested interest on the side of the global warming alarmists than on much of the opposition." What makes you think that? And then you continue, "...I am not convinced there is a clear majority of scientific opinion on either side of the debate." From what I've read, I think there is, although you are right and in science as opposed to politics, one would hope not to solve the problems by voting majority.
I think now basically every expert agrees that global warming is here, where the differences start is the scale of the phenomenon and the role of humans vs natural factors in this unfortunate process.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 20:12:14. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:27:39 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would like to see a point by point rebuttal to the evidence presented in this video report (posted by someone else in this thread). |
I'll try to get to it... Unfortunately since these arguments don't happen in peer-reviewed journals it's a big job tracking down where they got their data and how they processed it. This is the problem - rebutting each attack takes a committed investigation. They are working to create noise, not to spread truth. The "scientists" are from the Marshall Institute, which has received over $600,000 from Exxon over the past 10 years, if that helps.
And here's two for "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is the other popular denialist documentary.
These are the same tired arguments and massaged data being dragged out over and over again. The scientists try to answer (as I'm trying to) but it's easier to throw crap than it is to clean it up. The deniers cherry pick data, omit significant facts, and have, in some cases have falsified data. These people are liars, and they are paid to lie. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:37:14 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I would like to see a point by point rebuttal to the evidence presented in this video report (posted by someone else in this thread). From what I have seen, it is the GW alarmists that are behaving most ignorantly in this debate. Lots of examples of in this thread alone of attacks on people for not buying into the whole thing. |
Summarize its points and I will be more than happy to rebut the points and evidence that are inaccurate and/or flawed. I'm sure it will have points that I agree with as well and I have enough confidence in my own beliefs that I have no problem admitting valid opposing points.
I have watched a similar documentary and found hole-after-hole in it. I don't plan on spending 45 minutes watching and an hour RESEARCHING FACTS to have people dismiss the work I've done because they have a closed mind to the issue. I'll spend the time doing MY home work but you need to do yours first :) |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:13:44 PM · #170 |
One of my problems with the global warming theory proponents is the propaganda machine that targets our youth. Schools seem to rarely present both sides of this issue. Even in the UK it takes a judges proclamation to temper the tide of misinformation ala Al Gores Inconvenient Truth Movie. The result is a generation of ill informed and irrationally fearful kids. Shameful.
John Stossel U-tube vid on Global Warming |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:29:44 PM · #171 |
Okay, I'm bored so I'll fire a nice big shot at the "no consensus" argument that man isn't responsible for global warming.
Here's yer consensus:
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
The
Joint Science Society Statement
Major Scientific Organization Stances:
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (A part of NASA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The EPA
The Royal Society Of The UK
American Meteorological Society
National Center For Atmospheric Research
Is that enough to show that there IS a lot of common ground on the points made at the top? |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:32:22 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
One of my problems with the global warming theory proponents is the propaganda machine that targets our youth. |
Anti-climate change proponents are not part of a propaganda machine? I did not realize that. Thank you for clarifying. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:37:23 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by krafty1:
One of my problems with the global warming theory proponents is the propaganda machine that targets our youth. |
Anti-climate change proponents are not part of a propaganda machine? I did not realize that. Thank you for clarifying. |
I don't think you'll find anti-global warming videos being force fed to your school aged children. The propaganda is fear mongering for the benefit of "the cause". I think you'd be hard pressed to find something similar in scope on the other side. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:40:23 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
I don't think you'll find anti-global warming videos being force fed to your school aged children. The propaganda is fear mongering for the benefit of "the cause". I think you'd be hard pressed to find something similar in scope on the other side. |
Are you implying that climate change isn't happening because some people are overreacting?
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 21:40:40. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:45:07 PM · #175 |
I think this discussion on the topic of global warming has been interesting. I think the main question of the thread has been answered by the discussion. Yes, there are many climate change skeptics. I think also the science of global warming is not as conclusive and not as accepted as many would like to think it is.
Here is an edgey editorial from yesterday: //www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/COLUMNIST0130/711180390/1007/OPINION |
|
