Can I get the views of people who dispute anthropogenic global warming on the attached article?
Answer:
I don't deny anthropogenic global warming, but the article sounded reasonable to me.
Not too long ago there was an online poll which claimed that over 50% of Britains either didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming or that global warming was happening (I don't recall which), and news of this poll spread around like widlfire. There's no way it's even remotely accurate, as other more reliable polls have shown, but global warming deniers trumpeted the results endlessly.
The policy described in the article is accurate to the global warming denier movement in the US - emphasize the amount of debate and doubt about the issue and conclude that further research must be done before we take action. The endless delay tactic. Also the spread misinformation tactic. I'm sorry if global warming deniers don't want to hear it, but it's a simple fact that oil companies (in particular ExxonMobile) spend a lot of money funding "research" which concludes that humans are not causing global warming.
Typical Guardian lefty BS.
Sorry, but as soon as I read 'funded by Oil industry' it lost my interest.
Maybe that's the whole problem with the pro-lobby. Instead of trying to provide hard scientific fact. They come across as self righteous, lefty, anti capitalist twats. That's why i don't give them the time of day. Change that and we might get somewhere with this debate.
When I was in high school I wanted to become a journalist more than anything I could think of. Or at least I did until I learned that being a journalist isn't about investigating a story and writing on your findings. It's about investigating an issue to get enough information so you can give your story the slant that the editors want it to have - liberal/conservative, pro-Bush/pro-someone else, etc.
The media has very little credibility anymore when it comes to impartial, objective reporting. If your rating are struggling, you don't want to get on the band wagon that no one is paying any attention to. This includes the anti-anthropogenic global warming bandwagon.
To complicate matters, the IPCC has been so fraught with inconsistencies that their credibility is pretty shaky also. So now you have one shaky community reporting on another. What does that spell to you?
acouple of months ago it was stated that CO2. was not the main cause of global warming, but indeed methane contributed more gas to this problem than CO2. since the jungle produces most of the methane it seems a bit rich that you can trade carbon footprints with tree planting, also what are the politicians going to do about the jungle paradox. are they going to make deforestation law.
I'm only asking!
Being a scientist, I'm not a global warming skeptic. I just need to say a few things in response to the above.
1) It is always possible to raise doubt. It is always possible to attack the motivation of your political opponents.
2) A lot of science, perhaps even a majority of new work, is "bad", in the sense that it needs to be substantially revised by later work. The extent to which preliminary conclusions can be driven by funding considerations is remarkable. Nevertheless, there are underlying truths, and these will out in the end.
3) In my opinion, anyone who takes the time to learn the physics of planetary atmospheres and to interpret the data will see that there is a possibility of real danger to the Earth, to the living things on it, and to everything we hold dear. They would then see for themselves the irresponsibility (perhaps, one might even say, evil) of the skeptic's political position.
And you believe Bob May and his agenda..I don't believe it
Yeah - a bunch of people who can't prevail debating the merits of the issue are instead trying to call into question the motives of the other side on the issue.
You can't prove anthropogenic warming so you claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "funded by big oil."
Just about everyone who does agree with you is funded by organizations that have always held "big oil" in contempt, but you don't believe that indicates any bias on their part..
Why not judge the positions on their merits?
And your point is? I fail to see what an article in a newspaper has to do with scientific discourse. Would and article explaining how proponents of man made global warming depend on its existance for their income and their very jobs have any meaning?
Blah, blah, blah... every newspaper and TV news programme has it's own agenda. We all need to bear that in mind whenever we read/hear news, especially about topics such as this, which are LOADED with commercial interests.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: