Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaler17
I beleive it is.
A study reported the other day claimed that global warming "may be on hold for a decade or two" . WHAT? That is so completely contradictory to the claims of steady repeated cumulative damage happening every day that cars are driven and cows flatulate.
It seems to me like this is somebody's project now, and when evidence come sto light that the theory is flawed, then it has to be explained away with ridiculous statements like "well its just on hold for a few decades. The American public are such suckers for a guy who claims to be a "scientist".
|
Most of the people arguing in the public, whether for or against global warming, are not the scientists. And the positions of scientists are not explained well.
Science is about determining problems. Politics is about determining solutions... and you can guarantee that every interest group known to man is going to be jumping in to a debate that holds the very future of our existence in question...
And when the science itself is pointing to an issue that is in part badly reflective on some major interest groups, you can expect the interest groups to get vocal.
So why is it that the people who claim there is man-made global warming are PC... but the interest groups that throw all kinds of money into attempting to take the heat off their industries are not- seems to me they are just as political.
Really the science is pretty divided by how much humans affect global warming. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that there is global warming... but like most things it's effects are not 100% predictable to us.
When politics focuses too much on the end it's on now... we end up with dumb solutions. On the left there are calls for too little, too late cuts in emissions that will do nothing but make it look like we're doing something (well, I suppose technology to cut emissions may be helpful in the long run, but it's not a solution to the problem). On the right we're just getting calls to ignore it and keep on going because a fiction novelist and a few theoreticians with little knowledge of climate have come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist... and some scientists have claimed that other sources are more significant than human contribution (which does not mean that there is no human contribution and does not mean that it's not a problem).
This is the problem when scientifically illiterate politicians and biased interest groups are the primary spokesmen for an issue and the audience is a scientifically illiterate population.