Jim66 wrote:Based on your reply, I see that you attended the 'P. T' Barnum School of Science and Politics'.
Another nail in Algore's (yes, it is one word) coffin -
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ient-truth
slaven41 wrote: Well, the fact that a non-scientist chose to fudge a video clip for a presentation really doesn't constitute a refutation for the idea that human activity is causing global warming. (Nor does the fact that CO2 is necessary for plant life, a fact that I'm sure atmospheric scientists haven't forgotten.)
It seems a bit odd to me that with a large majority of atmospheric scientists asserting that human activity is leading to global warming, people think that discrediting Al Gore is the way to win the argument.
admin wrote:Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. (And giving him a "funny" name is a very weak way to attack him, since it could be used equally well to attack anyone, and any point of view.) But, global warming deniers are reduced to weak attacks, lacking any strong ones.
Whether or not greenhouse gases are causing global warming is a question that can only be answered by climate scientists -- not by politicians, not by "scientists" who turn out to be dentists, not even by mathematicians. If you claimed that the fundamental theorem of calculus was a hoax, I could rely on my own expertise to prove you wrong. But when it comes to global warming, while I understand the greenhouse effect, and I understand that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but whether or not there are other confounding factors is something I leave to the climate scientists. (The same is true of evolution, the age of the earth, and other scientific topics that Republicans feel passionately about.)
But I recognize a weak attack when I hear it.
My understanding is that your specialty is not climate science, but you do know enough science to know the difference between a climate scientist and a politician. The fact that you choose to attack the politician, not the scientist, is one sign that your agrument is not substantive.
If, in fact, the vast majority of scientists are wrong -- and that could happen, it happened in the case of continental drift -- that does not prove that the other side is right. It just proves that we don't know what's going on.
But consider the two alternatives. Conservation has many benefits. Burning all of our fossil fuel just as fast as we possibly can has no benefits, except to the short term profits of the oil companies. If the majority of climate scientists are wrong, then all we've lost is a little work trying to clean up the environment -- which has many benefits other than reducing greenhouse gases. On the other hand, if the majority of climate scientists are right, and we do nothing, millions die.
Why, then, are some people so passionate to deny that human activity is causing climate change?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests