Clean Air Makes Hurricanes Worse

Remove all ads!

I was mostly speaking directly to TGS' comments regarding his point of view. But yes, I also question the source, since it is not only Al Gore who is "Crusading" on this issue, but the likes of John McCain, the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA as well, and they all have extensive research and documentaion on the subject. Perhaps it all does not fully agree with Gore's movie, but much of it does, nevertheless.

 

With all due respect to Khaavern and Chandos, Al Gore's movie (which is a wide release) does imply that a "vast majority of scientists" do believe in global warming.

Now the people who believe that Mankind is responsible for the earth's getting warmer (and this in itself isn't a fact that everyone agrees with) seem to have much better P.R. then the people who think it is nonsense. Somehow people who don't follow the party line are labeled as "skeptics" which implies that they are wrong.

To me it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that if the Earth is getting warmer and the sun has been more active than that must be the reason. I'm also not convinced that the Earth is getting any warmer. I know our winters up here in the northeast USA seem to be getting colder. Of course I don't have any data to back that up other then how cold I've been getting.

Is the fact that some of the mentioned scientists are conservative reason to disbelieve their opinions?

Shouldn't a scientist be a skeptic about everything, instead of following the party line?

Why should anyone trust the word of a politician, are they somehow smarter than everyone else?

The EPA is for a clean environment. If scaring people into believing in Global Warming will get them to drive less, shut off lights, and not litter that does what their stated purpose is, why wouldn't they believe in it. I am sure the Sierra Club is also believer for if tankers of oil stop crashing then the little harp seals will be safe also.

I can't even imagine how Fox News and Ann Coulter got into this. I can only guess that it is an attempt to prove some sort of guilt by association (once again assuming that everything they say and believe must be wrong ).

I have a very hard time believing in complicated answers to complicated questions when it seems that a simple answer makes more sense. Isn't that called Ocham's razor or something like that?

 

Well, the summers around here are getting hotter and hotter every year. Temperatures around 35 degrees Celsius are not unusual anymore. In addition, the seasons set in later. Winter comes in january, while summer (with high temperatures) lasts until septembre.

Golbal warming is a fact. The average temperature rises steadily. The reasons? That's another story.

[ June 17, 2006, 23:42: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

I'm pretty sure they implied that because a vast majorty of scientists who have expertise in the area do believe in global warming. If the article were peer reviewed and written by a scientist, that would be another story.......but that isn't the case, here.


EDIT: Oh, yeah.....the scientists quoted aren't crackpots. They're sellouts (since they work for an organisation who has "debunk global warming" as one of its main objectives).

 

PETA only pays minimmum wage.....even if you are Ingrid Newkirk.....and most of their "employees " are actually volounteers. Working for PETA, I also wouldn't be trying to mislead the world into believing something dangerous and potentially causing Americans and the rest of the world to throw caution to the wind and engage in activities which are not only self destructive for us as a species, but potentially for all life on earth.

Working for PETA, I would only be taking orders from our activist customers and printing and mailing pamphlets which essentially state that animals feel pain when you hurt them and that animals would also rather not be killed and eaten (something I've never once seen a meat eater disagree with) and that because of that fact and the fact that we don't need to eat meat (or eggs or dairy or fish) to live that we really shouldn't eat it.

It again bears repeating that a non-peer reviewed scientific study isn't even worth the time that the scientist's peers haven't spent reviewing it. These "hired guns" rarely produce peer reviewed work and they get eaten alive by the scientific community when they do. (Which, I'm pretty sure, is why they tend not to do peer reviewed work.) What these scientists do is more akin to a movie reviewer who writes positive reviews for bad movies in exchange for compensation from the production companies. I doubt that most of these "skeptics" actually believe a word they are saying. They say it for the money.

[ June 18, 2006, 05:32: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@Drew

Could you please direct me to some peer reviewed scientific studies that show that animals would rather not be eaten?

As to the "hired guns" the global warming crowd IMO are even more guilty for they seem to be relying on scare tactics. If the evidence was that clear and everyone agreed it was, it would be a slam dunk.

 

Try watching the discovery channel. My exact verbiage, by the way, was "killed and eaten" (italics to emphasize the operative word). I am quite certain that, once dead, an animal most certainly does not care if it is eaten.

Onto your "request"......you're kidding, right? You don't need to conduct a study to know that animals prefer not to be killed (since they try to get away when attacked....and will fight when cornered). Nevertheless, the survival instinct is an intriguing subject to many and peer reviewed studies abound, but these studies aren't what you are looking for.....since they already assume that animals want to live.

"The Day After Tomorrow" was a scare tactic. (It also sucked, but that's off topic.) Stating that continued Global Warming will melt the Polar Ice caps and raise the sea level, however, is not. Stating that melting the Polar ice caps will drastically lower the temperature of the ocean and dramatically speed up the countdown to our next ice age is also not a scare tactic. Nor is it a scare tactic to point out that such rapid warming/cooling will create erratic, unpredictable weather patterns. It's already happening.

It is that clear. Any expert in the area who is not on the payroll of an organization with a vested interest in this debate does agree on the matter. Even the comittee Bush hired with the express purpose to disprove global warming concluded that global warming is a problem which is constantly getting bigger and that humans are the primary cause of global warming.....probably because they knew that their work would be subject to peer review.

[ June 18, 2006, 09:03: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Well that clears it up. I wasn't aware that the Pro Global Warming/Mankind is to blame for everything experts were all altruistic and aren't on anyone's payroll.

 

Those wacko envioronmentalist scientists are doing peer reviewed work. Theirs is the prevaling scientific opinion. Theirs are not the opinions of fringe groups. They, and the organizations they work for, also have no vested financial interest in the level (or lack thereof) of regulations in place regarding global warming.

Sorry, but this time the "radicals" are the ones arguing that there isn't any global warming or that it's a natural phenomenon. Scientists working for envioronmental groups and scientists working for groups with no vested interest either way are actually in agreement on the subject. It's the "skeptics" who are on the fringe.

[ June 18, 2006, 21:10: Message edited by: Drew ]