...its good. Rarely do we see a challenge to the "generally accepted" assumption that not only is global warming happen but its caused by human activity. Perhaps its not so cut and dry though...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think the theory of global warming is immaterial. Whenever a document of 'facts' is released for one side of an argument I'm sure you'll be able to find one showing the opposite. Of course there is a concern that global warming is the 'war on terror' for left wingers or even socialists (depending on whatever the behind-the-scenes reasoning for using it). But why discount it? Political reasons? Economic? Will we ever know if it's caused by industry or by normal earth cycles? Does it matter? Life and Earth will survive. Humans may not. My point of view can be seen by visiting two places and has nothing to do with global warming - first go to Downriver in Detroit (you may exchange with Gary, IN, Everett, MA, Newark, NJ) and then go to the forests of Norhtern Maine (not where the paper mills are) and then tell me that the impact of industry should not be regulated or that individuals do not need to be conscious of their own impact.
As for the article - my only beef is that he seems to only dispute the UNs assertion, which isn't a very reliable source when it comes to issues that affect social and economic issues or that can be used to promote programs that help underpriviliged nations. That doesn't disprove global warming coming from the general scientific community - I'm also not sure how they determined that it was a general consensus. And lastly, who is this dude? Is he a columnist? Scientist? Economist? Why don't they put his credentials on the article? And I was going to read the accompanying .pdf but it's 40 pages and I want to go to sleep. I also haven't read the Nov 12 follow up. I'll do that soon.
At least you admit its a theory. that's my biggest beef...its still a theory. Yet most news organizations and "leaders" take it as a given..as proven. My point was only to demonstrate that there are indeed dissenting opinionts and skeptics there. Even if Kofi Anon (who is a complete jackass) does say its out of touch and out of sync to think as such. He said that today actually.
We shouldnt be making important policy decisions on this "science", not when there are better reasons out there for justification like what you mentioned.
Or, i could've just wrote shutup you hippie! Have fun down under.
See, now you're making assumptions that I believe that global warming exists and are you getting into the whole "what is a scientific theory" media fight? But just because I am left leaning, especially in environmental concerns, doesn't mean that I agree with the global warming argument or other issues such as the Kyoto Protocol (because actually, I'm moderate to right in economics and really out for fairness for all). I'm also not saying that I don't believe in them.. I'm just saying that this guy's article is as dodgy as the people that use global warming to fight their own battles.
Post a Comment