the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

Art Caputi wrote:

I don't think there is much debate over the fact that the earth is
in a warming cycle, nor that the consequences could be unfortunate.
The debate seems to to what extent carbon dioxide caused by fossil
fuel combustion is responsible. The respected scientists
interviewed in BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" point out
that historical evidence show CO2 increases lag behind warming by
500 - 1000 years, which would make it seem to be an unlikely
culprit. At any rate, there do seem to be two sides to the story.
Nevertheless, it would seem prudent to reduce the consumption of
fossil fuels, especially petroleum, because they are a finite
resource, and at the very least contribute to air pollution and
various respiratory diseases. So it's probably a very good thing to
do, even if it's for possibly the wrong reason.

I recently talked to a climatologist who had given a talk on the
implications of global warming for agriculture in the US. When I
prodded him about the contirbution of anthropogenic sources to the
current warming trend, he indicated he felt it was somewhere
between 0 and 25%. He thought closer to zero, but did not want to
be quoted. He suggested that publicly going against the current
politically correct positions would reduce his chances for
advancement in his university and for research funds.

I am not a climatologist nor an atmospheric scientist, so I have no
idea who is right. I do know that not every scientist in those
fields blames anthropogenic sources for the warming trend, and I
believe they have a right to have their views publicized and held
up to scientific scrutiny. History records at least a few people
whose views differed from those generally held and who were
ridiculed but ultimately vindicated.

There are quite a few cases of this in the past. The earliest supporters of global warming are likely a good case in point.

There are ALWAYS a few scientists that go against the grain. Some holdouts against rapidly growing consensus. For a great example of this, look at the evolution "debate".

That's why I follow the actual peer reviewed science journals. Instead of playing to the ignorant, they have to convince actual scientists that they are right.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow