http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/global_warming_science_implode.html
The interesting points concern the so-called connection to the Amazon rain forest without taking logging into consideration, the connection of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri to business interests that profit from all this global warming science and the fact that the UK press is all over this-but the US press is silent.
And for how long have the environmentalists been complaining about logging in the Amazon?
But the good news for the GW crowd is that none other than Osama bin Laden is now adding his voice to all the great "experts" who are forecasting the doom of the planet due to GW. Of course, I don't know whether bin Laden's information has been "peer reviewed".
Maybe Osama bin Laden will turn up soon in Norway.
And yet again, it's tearing apart something that was never even peer-reviewed.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, what I will give you is this: there are definitely a lot of people and organizations who are exaggerating and distorting the science on global warming. While I hate to join you in the Al Gore-bashing, I think that much of the doomsday scenarios that he painted in his movie are just the sort of thing that I'm talking about.
This, however, does not negate all of the research and evidence that shows that human beings are indeed having an impact on the warming of the earth. All it shows is that there are some morons on this side of the debate - and there are PLENTY of morons on the other side as well.
I guess the best comparison is this: Is Christianity invalid because Pat Robertson is an idiot? No, of course not. And the science of global warming is not invalid because of the obvious shoddy research of the the IPCC.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteIt's not a case of Pat Robertson being an idiot. Christianity would be discredited if evidence starting showing up proving that everything in the Bible is untrue. (let's don't gop there, pls.)
I could be wrong or Al Gore could be wrong, but I think it is safe to say-we don't know and the science is divided. I am not willing to turn over America to some international regulatory outfit that will reduce us to the level of Bangladesh-unless it can be proven. And I don't agree with those who take the better swafe than sorry approach. That's like saying a giant asteroid may destroy earth in 10 years, so we all need to relocate to Jupiter-just in case.
Yes, we can do lots of things to keep the environment clean, and that's nice, but not this UN-favored approach. Massive redistribution of wealth, massive taxes, and destroying America's superiority (for lack of a better word). No way.
we don't know and the science is divided
ReplyDeleteHow divided do you think it is, exactly? How much division does there need to be for one side to be relevant?
For instance, and let's just say that this is accurate for argument's sake, as I didn't really spend a lot of time fact-checking this, but one statistic I found said that 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is man-made.
This means that only three percent of experts in that particular field disagree! I bet that you can find a greater number of historians who think that the Holocaust never happened - but surely you wouldn't say that the "history is divided", would you?
I guess all I'm asking is that if that statistic is indeed true, would it be safe to say that "the science is divided" isn't a very accurate claim?
Lance,
ReplyDeleteIs it 97%? I don't know what the breakdown is, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we are finding out a lot of these claims are not true. And why are the Europeans publishing these stories while our media all but ignores it?
Lance are you suggesting there is a comparison with holocaust denial? Is it fair to compare holocaust deniers with GW deniers or sceptics? One group is made up of kooks. The other group is not made up of kooks.
You're missing the point. My question is that if 97% of climatologists accept man-made global warming, then is the 3% opposition enough for us to say "the science is mixed"?
ReplyDeleteAs for our press ignoring the issue, that's still something else entirely. But with every one of these, it's hardly as damning as you like to make it out to be. Look, if it was, I'd admit it. I actually want you to be right, but this stuff just isn't very convincing.
And again, the glaciers ARE melting. That hasn't been refuted. The only thing that's been refuted is the rate in which they are melting. Don't you think that's kind of significant?