Why is the global warming catastrophe reported so one-sided?
Check these out, and I dare you to actually read some of them for those who inevitably will post a smartass answer.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/npa235.htm...
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/c...
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?par...
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements...
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-1...
http://www.amazon.com/chilling-stars-the...
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/...
Answer:
You'll never convince them because their "science" is dogma - they want to believe it, so they will.
Check out this question from Dana and his claim of a disproven Svensmark hypothesis. It's a pathetic performance by a claimed astrophysics Master, and illustrates the sad lack of sound scientific method employed by these alarmists. My answer is long, but Dana is totally owned.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Keep up the good work.
Well let's see, you've got Inhofe twice (politician #1). You've got Svensmark whose theory was just disproven:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...
You've got a couple of attacks on a flim by Al Gore (politician #2), and a couple of other skeptics. I'd address their points but I don't have time to read all that stuff right now.
Let's just say I'm underwhelmed. Your assumption that global warming acknowledgers haven't read the science or opposing viewpoints is simply wrong. Quite the opposite - global warming deniers in general fit your assumption perfectly.
what's the other side? that there's no global warming? these activist are people who feel that there needs to be a changed in how people treat the environment. You don't need to read a scientific article to see that the glaciers are melting, the earth temperature has risen and that it snows in places that never seen snow before.
Global warming coverage is one sided because it is mainly a political issue. 30 years ago there was a similar alarmist movement claiming that rampant deforestation in developing nations would cause the oxygen in the air to be used up faster than it was replenished, causing everyone to suffocate. Since a major politicians did not back this, nothing came of it.
Back in the late 90's, a publishing executive in a Nashville suburb forecast doom and gloom on January 1, 2000 as all the computers in the world failed to roll the year over to 2000 but reset to 1900, causing all kind of mayhem as the millions of embedded processors used in cars, airplanes, ATMs, Coffee pots and VCRs suddenly stopped working. People were scared enough to sell their houses and move to shacks in the desert, filled with army surplus food rations, guns and ammo to protect themselves from the predicted rampant chaos.
So people want to believe the worst.. So much for human nature.
I'm not convinced by sources denyng global-warming,
but I am very suspicious of sources claiming it's "undeniable."
I can't tell whether or not there is a real danger from human-induced global warming because the science of climatology is being destroyed by the religion of anti-human Earth worship.
Because the issue itself is one sided. There is almost total unanimity in the scientific community on over the theory. In order to present two sides to a scientific debate you have to have, well, =two= sides.
And have YOU read the scientific facts in depth? Eight, count'em eight links -- and not one piece of real peer-reviewed science. (Though the Amazon.com link edges in that direction, since the book in question was written by a real scientist. But alas, his hypothesis has just been refuted: see the last link below.) Maybe that's why the reporting is so one-sided: because the SCIENCE is so one-sided. Sure, you can dredge up all the Inhofes and conservative think-tanks you want, all from oil states and funded by oil money. That's no surprise. But can you actually quote something from a peer-reviewed scientific source? C'mon, the web is full of 'em. Shouldn't be that hard, if you have any real evidence that is anything other than than spin, deception, and lies.
If you really want to convince people, here's how to do it: with real science, and real citations to real sources.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/had...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/toc/gl/gl/gl0018...
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/...
http://crgd.atmos.uiuc.edu/publications/...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/report/ar4w...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://science-mag.aaas.org/cgi/content/...
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4jl7...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pdaf...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4f9y...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e0de...
http://cat.inist.fr/?amodele=affichen&cp...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xjj2...
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qf66...
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...
You are correct that one side in this debate has not studied the science in depth. That would be your side.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: