| Mendicate Bias said: I hate how you all make this political. This is pretty much the exact same situation that existed with the evolution debate a few decades ago. This is science, not opinion. The research has been done and the data is there. There is just as much a consensus in the scientific community that the current climate change is man made as there is that evolution is true. Most of the people giving their opinions here have probably read a single article or book on the subject and think their experts. How did this country go from being at the forefront of science and technology to banning stem cell funding, denying evolution, denying global warming and trying to make out the scientist as being some shady back door business man making millions off lying to the public. The funny thing is there is just as much money and jobs in "green"/renewable energy, if not more, as there is in oil. Its just the people that have the money now don't want to give it up. If we find a better source of energy a hundred years in the future we will probably run into the same problem again. All the billionaires that make their money off green energy will resist change. btw I'm not supporting Numonix, he's just as bad as the people denying man made climate change because their political party tells them to. |
On it being political ... I think you need to read about Patrick Moore, he has a PHD in ecology and is one of the co-founders of greenpeace. Here is a small portion of his wiki page:
"In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."[26] Moore contends that for the environmental movement "most of the really serious problems have been dealt with", seeking now to "invent doom and gloom scenarios".[27] He suggests they romanticise peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as "anti-human".[28][29] "
Now if you want to understand people's reasoning as to why they aren't true believers of "global warming" spend some time of your own reading Anthony Watts' (a former meteorologist) blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) where he analyzes and interprets the data and methodology used by climate researchers.
I also recommend that you look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ where individuals audited all the weather stations in the United States; and based on current standards that are supposed to be followed 92% are not accurate enough to measure the temperature change associated with global warming. The most common reason for this inaccuracy is what is known as the urban heat island effect, and this impacts these weather stations because over time their surrounding area has changed from being in a park or field that is properly shaded to being in a parking lot or on top of a large building, constantly exposed to direct sunlight and often placed next to an external heating source (like a vent for an industrial air conditioner).
If you actually look at the argument that comes from many/most skeptics you will find that the underlying data used is in questionable shape, the methodology used to interpret and combine the data if flawed, scientists who demonstrate how solar influences (like sun-spot activity) are having an influence on weather are being ignored, many of the researchers involved have demonstrated biases, and many of the individuals and organizations pushing for action stand to gain financially from the action they propose being taken.
This isn't a question of people rejecting global warming as a matter of faith, many of the most significant papers in climate science that are used to argue for global warming wouldn't be published in any other field because of their flaws; and many of the researchers would be fired (and potentially lose their PHD) if they used similar methodologies in other fields.
Of course, this doesn't mean that there is no man made global warming, but with the shape of the science you can hardly say that the evidence to support such a claim is non-existent.
