I just happened across a series of articles (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0) that I think everyone here should read. In recent years those that support the scare campaign known as global warming have increasingly tried to dismiss those that disagree with them on this issue as being untrustworthy, in the pockets of of various industries, cranks, and/or one the periphery of the scientific community. In this series of articles the credentials of several global warming critics are examined and their arguments presented. If you will take the time to go through the articles, you will find that they are not what the global warming advocates claim they are. You will also get a perspective that such people don't want you to have.
One of the articles that I found particularly interesting (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0) tells about how Mars is also experiencing warming. Obviously, it would be very hard to make an argument that we humans are responsible for Martian global warming. So, perhaps another explanation should be sought that accounts for the changes in the climates of both planets.
********************
"jangobean: Like i've said previously, the big problem isn't what or who has caused it - the problem is what are we going to do about it?"
If we don't really know what is causing climate change, then how can we really formulate a response to it? For example, before we discovered that it was microscopic organisms that cause diseases, people tried many different things to cure people. Most of the time, the "cures" were ineffective at best to deadly at worst. Until you understand the true nature of a problem, you are not likely to be able to find the solution to that problem. If global warming is caused by wholly natural processes, as some contend, then all of the solutions that the environmentalist propose would have us crippling our economies for nothing. Ever since the inception of modern environmentalism, the environmentalists have been making predictions of doom. Back in the late 70's and early 80's the fear was not global warming, it was global cooling. The were predicting that we were heading into a new ice age. That did not get enough attention. One of the gurus of the environmental movement, Paul Ehrlich predicted wide spread famines cause be a shortage of most resource because he said the Earth was getting over populated. However, ALL of his prediction proved to be grossly exaggerated to just plain wrong. Despite the track record people still listen to him. The fact of the matter is that the dire predictions of these people keep failing to materialize. Yet they want us to listen to them and alter behavior based on this faulty track record. I will take them more seriously when they can actually start to make accurate predictions.
*****************
I have been slowly working my way through the series of articles to which I linked above. If you don't read any of the other, you really should read "The original denier: into the cold" (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0). This one describes the politics that go on behind the scenes of the IPCC. It talks about how the report summaries are not written by the scientists, but by politicians and how they really do not reflect the findings in the reports themselves. It also talks about how those that support the cataclysmic predictions are rewarded with research grants and those that question these conclusions are punished through character assassination and the withdrawal of funding.
This issue of funding is particularly interesting because it reveals the hypocrisy of the global warming alarmists because one of the criticisms that they level against those that dispute their finding is that they are being funded by industry. So, of course their findings are biased. However, we are supposed to ignore the fact that this issue of funding based bias is a two edged sword. If we can't trust the scientists who are funded by industry, the why should we trust the scientists who face the very real possibility of being destroyed academically and financially if they don't tow the alarmist line?
Comments
Who is scaremongering? The scientists? Why would they do that?
by jangobean on February 2nd, 2007
Maybe because the actual facts didn't get noticed in the least and the only way to get the ears of ANYBODY nowadays is to go over the top?
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on February 2nd, 2007
I agree jervinator
by BobSaccamano-is-back on February 2nd, 2007
Well said, saved me the typing Jervinator :)
by Anonymous on February 2nd, 2007