[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by puckhog

I read stuff like this and shake MY head. This "right-wing media" hiding the truth nonsense is hilarious, if anything the slant in media (with the obvious exception of Fox News) is distinctly left-wing, especially here in Canada.

Actually, I never mentioned which bias the media had, YOU did, just now. I was critical of all media, and the echo chamber they create. All media is responsible for this, irregardless of ideological bias, as the journalistic practices (fact checking being the most important) has gone by the wayside in favor of breaking the story first.

Fact of the matter is that all media has become right wing, as has the basic political ideology in our countries. There is actually no true voice on the extreme left, as that was permanently muted during the McCarthy era, but the extreme right continues to be guaranteed a voice and promoted through the corporate owned media.

Your argument of truth not making a splash is also hypocritical, considering that mainstream media frequently trots out global warming models predicting flooding, extinction of species, etc, all released by scientists that you claim to be peddling the truth - talk about sensationalized.

Really? Yeah, I read about these studies every single day in the WSJ and the NYT and the WP. They're EVERYWHERE, ALL the time!

What they fail to mention is that models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and the base assumption in all of these models is that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. In spite of all your bluster, this is far from proven.

The United Nations and the majority of climatologists disagree with you.

There is legitimate science studying the effect of the sun on global climate trends, however, you choose to right it off, labelling it as propped up by oil companies, when much of it is not.

No, I did not marginalize that science, I marginalized one individual who gets his money from big oil. There is a massive difference. But if Patterson is that one guy, who is carrying the charge for this science (which he is not IMO) then that school of science is in very deep trouble.

You also fail to realize that the science in your favor is propped up by huge government subsidies. In the 80s Margaret Thatcher basically put money on the table for the scientists who could "prove" anthropogenic global warming. She did this in order to move away from dependency on coal and advance Britain's nuclear program. The point of this is that you claim that the science arguing against CO2 caused global warming is heavily subsidized by industry, however, those presenting your side are equally funded (if not more so).

That is incorrect and akin to the erroneous claims by the right that Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. Fact of the matter is that climate change and the CO2 theory has been around since the early 20th century when Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, promoted the theory. It has been studied since then and we've had many different fields of study come to the same conclusion. Oceanographer Roger Revelle predicted in 1957 that CO2 would build up in the atmosphere and would have significant impacts on our planet by the year 2000. Climatologist Suki Manabe predicted in 1980 that the poles would begin to deteriorate as a result of this CO2 enduced global warming. At that same time NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted, with stunning accuracy, what the temperatures would be like in 30 years and the impacts they would have. Margaret Thatcher had zero to do with any of this.

These gloom and doom predictions from these models are garbage - the temperature of the earth has been much higher than it is now, and nothing disastrous happened.

Disaterous, like the polar ice caps disappearing and hurricane storm strength getting progressively stronger, with more high force storms berthing than ever before? No, none of that stuff is happening. Now excuse me, I have to go water skiing in the Northwest Passage, as its ice free for the first time on our recorded history.

This is the left-wing creating a state of fear in order to get elected (which I will grant that the right-wing does as well with their claims of terrorism threats). I just think it's interesting that while you are so quick to call fear-mongering when it's the opposing view, you're too wrapped up in your own self-righteousness to see when your side does it.

Get it through your head, there is no left wing in North America. There is the right, and then there are those who are not on the right. There is no communist voice. There is no socialist voice. The Liberals, who are pretty damn centerist in the political spectrum, are the far left. The extreme right has moved the center line to the point where true conservatives, those who used to be on the right, are now the centerist position.

The truth is that our climate is a function of many, many factors, however, the largest determinant is solar activity. Without the sun, our climate wouldn't exist, so it is not possible to say that there is a greater determinant. As for the recent temperature trends, I feel that pinning them all on one factor is ignorant and dangerous, as it is leading us into a state of great fear.

I agree. There are MANY determining factors as to why our planet is heating up, but why shouldn't we control the ones that we can? We can't control the sun, but we can control the amount of polutants that we pump into our atmosphere. Even if they only decrease polution and make our air better to breath, and even if they decrease the number of smog days in a year, and even if they decrease the occurances of asthma and other respitory diseases, shouldn't THAT be enough incentive to do so? You toss around bull like "self-righteousness" so excuse me while I toss the terms "arrogance" and "selfish" in your face. Because you supposedly know a lot more than the scientists studying this subject matter, and you couldn't careless about anyone or anything else, because it could possibly impact your precious lifestyle.

To be clear, all of this is not to say that I don't support initiatives to reduce pollution and emissions - I think it is very important that we take responsibility for our impact on the environment, and live my live as such. However, I think that currently we are taking responsibility for an impact that we have very little to do with, and as a result are spending tremendous resources on fighting a force that is much greater than us.

So to put that in clear one sentence, we don't really know, so we should just bury our heads in the (oil) sands and do nothing.

Brilliant.