Yep. And conversely, the only way Republicans get elected these days is by acting more liberal. Both sides have identity crises. And quite frankly, I don't blame them. Rush's vague platitudes are hardly profound. I honestly wasn't aware that people still took him seriously. That is somewhat amusing, but mostly saddening.
You are the one who made the statement "For every bit of "evidence" that man is causing the earth to warm, there is just as much evidence that it is a natural occurrence that has happened to this planet for eons.....before any industrial manufacturing or SUV's. " Once again, when I ask you to cite your sources, you bristle and start demanding that I produce evidence to the contrary. Well, you know I will, but first you must back up your statement. You claim there is "just as much" evidence that humans haven't caused global warming, but you don't cite any. Of course, martin points out, in any scientific debate one can find opinions to the contrary. This is how science works--a constant challenging of ideas. But the concensus among scientists is growing that we may have crossed a "tipping point" with regards to human effects on global climate. The general population is starting to agree. In fact, this week's TIME magazine has a great series of articles on the subject. One of the things that they point out is that most people aren't aware of the broad scientific concensus on warming. They see it as a problem for future generations. LINK
more people listen when you sound an alarm. scientists who make news get more attention and higher profile jobs. thats how the world works. if i say "there is no evidence for god, i have no clue", nobody worships me. but if i have all the answers, i can start a cult. it dosent make news when results are inconclusive. but sometimes the results are inconclusive. but nobody wants to buy a time magazine with the title "inconclusive! you should maybe worry or maybe not!" a situation where the data doesnt lead to conclusions is frustrating. we have to accept it sometimes though. even when going through the chicken little routine is a hell of a lot more fun.
Oh so TIME magazine is better than a book where Crichton sites expert research? Whatever. Again, I'm not a climate researcher and neither are you. I don't buy the statement that people are biased on both sides nonsense. I'm not biased against anything that is the truth....and from what I have read, all of the UN backed studies which policymakers are using as fact, are biased and have been proven wrong. For instance: "In 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001. Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning. Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work. The hockeystick controversy drags on. But I would direct the Committee's attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann's publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to wait for validated results." This is the sort of thing that is happening. The UN and environmentalist wacko groups have adopted as fact studies that over a few years, under independent review, have been found flawed. So we should go out and sign Kyoto, which no one is actually following and hamstring our economy? How bout we get correct research on this deal, without bias, and then think rationally about it before we start making bold predictions based on inaccurate data. So it befuddles me when guys like you, who have no experience and have done no research in the field yourself, say you know man has caused this when scientists from Harvard, MIT still can't prove this. That should make sense to you. http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
False. During election time, Republicans and Democrats run to the more conservative stances. What did the DEM's just do.........released a "contract with America" type statement in which they attempted to prove they want to get tough on terrorism when they are elected to Congress this year. It's the same thing every election cycle....watch, DEM's will start talking about tax cuts, tough on crime and more military spending. Dude, those are all conservative ideals.....not liberal.
i dunno. alls i am saying is i expect the more alarming opinions to be over-represented in a situation like this, as they are more interesting and newsworthy. and i expect the alarm-sounders willl try and convence the general public that "consensus" of scientists agree with them. but i dunno if that is really the case. the other side is pretty convincing too. they point out that the earth has a history of violent climate change. this article, for example, =talks plenty about how though history the climate tends jump around, and nobody knows why: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020107fa_FACT when scientists are showing me they know why the earth tends to change teperature all the time, and they can rule out all the ordinary reasons and isolate man's effects, then i might buy into their theories. i read "chaos", by james gleick. it is probbaly the most famous book for the general public on chaos theory. in the first chapter it explains unpredictable systems, and the example was weather. the best meteorologist in the world cant give an accurate weather report for 3 weeks from now. even if we knew the exact temperature of everywhere and windspeed and everything you could know about the current situation of the earth, you cannot extrapolate out the future accurately. so the earth is not a determinate system. it is chaotic, inherently unpredictable. so i am not buying these cause-effect connections between human activity and climate change. we don't understand why climate changes when we are not around, why should we be eager to claim it is our doing when it happens when we are around?
Well, a news magazine is at least a factual document citing legitimate sources, while a novel is . . . fiction. I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm a research scientist at LSU. And I'm not befuddled at all. My specialty is not climate, but I work in the Energy, Coast and Environment building with such specialists every day and I'm far from inexperienced in the subject. You are making a blind assumption. Thanks for citing a source for your statement, I appreciate it. I must point out however that it has been criticised widely in the scientific community, most Harvard and MIT scientists included. Link: Foes of global warming theory have energy ties "WASHINGTON -- Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of global warming are wrong. The scientists who wrote the study contend that the global warming of recent decades is not without precedent during the past 1,000 years, as other scientists have claimed. In fact, they say the Earth was even warmer during what is known as the "medieval warm period" between A.D. 900 and 1300. The paper has touched off a worldwide storm of e-mail among climate scientists, some of whom have proposed organizing a research boycott of two journals that published the study. The links among authors of the new study, the non-profit groups and the energy interests illustrate a three-way intersection of money, science and policy. Energy interests underwrote the study and help finance the groups that are promoting it. The study also illustrates a strategy adopted by some energy companies in the late 1980s to attack the credibility of climate science, said John Topping, president of the Climate Institute and a former Republican congressional staffer who founded the institute in 1986. By relying on the news media's inclination to include both sides of a story, the industries were able to create the impression that scientists were deeply divided over climate change, Topping said. "It was all very shrewdly done," he said." ... AT A GLANCE THE PREVAILING VIEW: Climate change threatens the global environment. THE CONTROVERSY: Most climate scientists think the rise results from the atmospheric buildup of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases," especially carbon dioxide released by the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. Industry-backed groups claim their study challenges the validity of this view by presenting evidence of global warming at a time when fossil fuels were not being burned in appreciable quantities. THE JOURNALS REPORTING IT: British scientific journal, Energy and Environment; Discovery Channel Online THE BACKERS: The research was underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association of the world's largest oil companies. Two of the five authors are scientists who have been linked to the coal industry and have received support from the ExxonMobil Foundation. Two others, who are affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also have the title of "senior scientists" with a Washington-based organization supported by conservative foundations and ExxonMobil Corp. The organization, the George T. Marshall Institute, is headed by William O'Keefe, a former executive of the American Petroleum Institute.
No, CC is correct. Both parties move toward the middle during elections. You will see this in the upcoming 2006 elections. You are really going to see this in 2008 when Giuliani and McCain take the Republican party towards the center. They are going to back off of Iraqi military misadventures, anti-abortion laws, faith-based programs, tax reductions, corporate emphasis, and lax immigration policy.
OK so every study you have, finding that man caused climate change, is correct and every study that has climate change proven inaccurate is setup by energy companies. Why discuss anything with you? You answered nothing in my post just said energy companies are behind all of this. OK, you work at LSU. So does John Brady. Show me the Red Climate Change study. Show me one of your buddies climate change study that says man has caused the polar ice caps to melt. I haven't read one thing on an LSU research study that shows man melted the ice caps. Link to that here on TigerForums. I work with DR.'s, lawyers....it doesn't make me an expert on the Supreme Court anymore than working with a lib weatherman makes you a climatologist. Where is your research? I'm not saying it's not happening.......just where are the facts that have not already been shot down by scientists all over the world. You're the one saying man has caused this........show me that.
