"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.
“The planet has a fever,” Gore said. “If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.”
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the "Global Warming" Petition.
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Link
14 comments:
How many of these "scientists" are climatologists? How many have done work in the field? How many have published on global warming? Not many, would be my guess. Certainly not the MDs.
I would give more weight to the 2000 scientists on the IPCC and the National Academies of Sciences of 11 nations.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you:
"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against."
Monday's ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
"It is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group."
"This is a total repudiation of the refusal of the Bush administration to use the authority he has to meet the challenge posed by global warming."
Did any of you see the 60 Minutes episode last night about the melting of the glaciers in Antarctica?
Pretty scary stuff.
Considering that none of the five Justices who ruled in favor of this bureaucratic bungle are "climatologists" their opinion holds no water with me, but once again proves to me that this is not a scientific movement, but rather political by its very nature.
Speaking of water....
We all know that carbon represents but a measly yet all powerful .04% of the atmosphere, Im curious what the percentages are for water, and the effect of the hydrologic cycle on earths temperature.
Off the top of my head, Id say its slightly greater than .04%, just a guess, but since you cant tax the oceans....
I think you're half right. The "anti-global warming" movement is political in nature, an article of faith among wingnuts.
Why do you hate science so much?
I do not hate science,to the contrary, it is just that I find the scientific evidence for manmade global warming persuasive.
i'm beginning to think that the donkey is being a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian.
now, the rhino, that's another story.
Gary,
No you do not.
At least that is not what anything you have said here would lead me to believe. You never argue the science, you only argue against the scientist (messenger) and their motives. You will not and can not address the glaring discrepancies (lies)in the alarmists arguments, which to rehash...the total minimalization of natural occurences as having an impact on the current warming cycle. You ignore volcanoes, solar irradiance, the water cycle etc. You ignore the earth's history of warming and cooling periods. Yet you claim science as your friend.
Youre a fraud.
Youre the kid that voted for Wind Beneath My Wings for your prom song because everybody else did, because it was a "consensus", if you will. The song sucked.
Science is not a popularity contest.
Anita,
Contrarian! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
..but to get back to the topic at hand.
Lets recap.
Rhino points out that contrary to Al Gore, public perception and media coverage, there are a plethora of scientists that doubt that the current warming cycle is anthropogenic. 17,100 to be exact.
Gary's argument against is that they are probably not "climatologists", and therefore not entitled to an opinion and further that any opinion they have is not valid. Once again demonstrating his disdain for actual scientific discovery.
Anita's argument is that global warming is man made because John Paul Stevens said so, and that melting glaciers on 60 Mins were scary last night. Once again demonstrating her basic inability.
That 'bout right?
Frickin idjits
I don't argue the science because I am not a scientist, and have no expertise in climatology. I believe that the best that a non-scientist can do, whether a citizen or a policy maker, is to be guided by the scientific consensus, and if there is no consensus to withold judgement. This was basically the position, by the way, of Bertrand Russell.
In this case, given the strength of the scientist, I think it more likely that the majority is right, although I will not say it is certain.
I do hold the scientific method in high regard.
"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position."
"I think, the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology....Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship...."
"The supreme reality of our time is ...the vulnerability of our planet." -John F. Kennedy
"The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives." - Native American Proverb
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land
instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in
the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand
down to them amplified. . . " - Theodore Roosevelt
"Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans."
-Jacques Cousteau
Post a Comment