Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
Deal with what? The fact that he along with others have created a hysteria in the general public based on imcomplete facts and flawed "scientific experiments." These flawed experiments are dictating costly policies that directly effect you and I. No I will not deal with it.
|
You state this beauty, then follow it up with this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
All I am going to say is to read a paper by professor Tim Patterson of Carlton University. His papers are supported by many people in climate science. If you read it you will see that sunspot variations are primary cause of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
Also there have been periods in history when the Earth's temperature has been higher than CO2 levels. |
Tim Patterson, and his Natural Resources Stewardship Project, are well known shills for the petrochemical lobby north and south of the 49th. He and his collegues get substantial payments through this front organization and are paid to dismiss the accepted theory and promote other, less accepted (nee fringe), theories that have even less data supporting them. If that's who you have tied your beliefs to, you're being lead down the wrong path.
As distinguished American sociologist, Robert K. Merton stated about science, "there is no such thing as a scientific truth believed by one person and disbelieved by the rest of the scientific community; an idea becomes a truth only when the vast majority of scientists accept it without question. That is, after all, what we mean by the expression 'scientific contribution': an offering that is accepted however provisionally, into the common fund of knowledge."
Like it or not, global warming is a universally accepted truth. There is no argument on the topic. What is open to debate is the reasons for the warming effect. The vast majority of the scientific community have agreed on the CO2 theory as most likely, but there is still discussion about how the CO2 increases are tied to human action and our level of responsibility. Because this is not yet agreed to, universally, does not mean we should not act upon this. That does not change the fact that we have the ability to alter our society for the betterment of the planet by reducing our contribution to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here, I'll try and put into terms that make sense to you.
If the toilet in your house is plugged and overflowing, do you take action to stop the flow of effluent back into your home? Or do you go in and drop a deuce and roll the dice by pulling the handle again? Maybe you play it smart and hold it, or you go next door and use your neighbor's crapper? I know what the pragmatic decision would be, I guess the only question is do you?