Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe
Interesting reaction to Thomas Friedman's article on "Global Weirding" in today's NY Times. He lays out an argument for getting climate scientists together and coming up with a clear joint statement on what is know about climate change (he admits that calling it global warming sets of the denialists whenever a snowstorm happens). His belief, as expressed in the article, is that if people just looked at the undisputed facts (of which there are many) they would realize that deniers are motivated to attack global climate change as unproved in order to protect their economic interests, and that the denial has nothing to do with science.
So people started commenting on the NY Times article. One of the comments (which attracted lots of recommendations) was to the effect that "Friedman - you are crazy to think that people will listen to reason - after all, a majority of Americans think (wrongly) that Saddam Hussien was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and 75% of Republicans believe Obama isn't American." While I don't know if her percentages are right, it certainly is true that many people hold onto patently false beliefs... for reasons I cannot comprehend. as another commenter notes, a large percentage of people don't even believe in evolution (which even the Catholic Church accepts as accurate)
A sample comment: "Sorry Tom, the fact of this matter are that no argument, no evidence, no persuasion will convince the folks tilted against the climate change (Global Warming) issue. They issue ridiculous statements and seemingly logical arguments against this issue and no evidence, no statement by experts will dislodge their stance. Those opposed to taking any action to moderate climate change are similar in mindset to the Creationist claiming fossils were placed on earth by the Devil to confuse mankind. This is a hopeless situation and as long as the United States is ruled by politicians willing to promulgate these arguments, to confuse voters, in support of their corporate bosses, we are lost."
So it seems we go down our separate paths - those who look at science - a process based on evidence, a self-correcting process, and those who look elsewhere - though for the life of me I cannot understand where they look, as it seems part denial of reality, part not wanting to face anything uncomfortable, and part not wanting to give up privilege that makes others pay for our extravagantly wasteful lifestyle.
When I first posted on Winnipesaukee.com I did not believe there were people who would admit to being climate deniers - those who would not accept the scientific evidence but instead refer to anecdotes (like "DC got a lot of snow - that means no global warming") or industry speaking pints that are not based on real evidence. I have learned a lot. I'm still amazed that people admit to rejecting science - its a sad comment on our country when science is denied and financial interests prevail. I have heard some posters say the issue of climate change/global warming is not settled science, and I appreciate skepticism (which is different than the more common extremist views regularly voiced here), but skepticism has to at least address the vast preponderance of evidence supporting global warming theories, and do something other than scream "its cold right here right now" to disprove global warming.
|
And its funny I am just as sad for you that you swallow every bit of "Science" jammed down your throat and take it as fact. You look down at everyone else who does not share your view. Global Warming is not a fact! No matter how many times you say it to yourself it just does not make it any more true. Part of being a learner, and educated person is to read and react to what you see and hear. You, unfortunately read and accept. There are literally THOUSANDS of contradictions in the Global Warming Science. There are thousands of scientists who dispute it. I am just as scared that there are people like you out there that follow the herd and file in line behind flawed science and no matter what refuse to question the authority on its findings. As I said before I believe in Climate Change. I believe these things to be cyclical over billions of years. I believe Dinosaurs probably emitted as much methane gas to cause climate change billions of years ago. I believe one volcano can have a profound affect on the environment. I believe that pollution is a problem. I just don't subscribe to the alarmist mentality that you so willingly accept, and blindly might I add. It is our right to question the science especially when the motivation lies heavily on the supporters of said theories, contrary to what you think. Billions in grant money is at stake here.
The saddest part is that once the government took a stake in this we all lost. There are lies on both sides of the issue that is for sure.
Shed, You turn your nose down and act all superior and that is fine but you are merely swallowing a political agenda yourself. Do not try and hide behind the Scientists and Peer Reviews. As we have seen they are on shaky ground and we are well within our rights to question them. You are not better than us. I am saddened by your opinion that you think you are.
Here is one of thousands of Scientists:
Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change," he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information."
The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.
Scientists tell reporters that computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they?
The fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert.
Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."