Quote:
Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@May 3 2005, 10:52 AM
Anyways, even though there are split theories on the issue, it seems that they're about 10 to 1 saying that global warming is happening.
Its always possible to find 1 person who will argue something and use that person as you backup.
Personally, I think the environmental experts and people at NASA are probobly more qualified to make these calls than Crichton or anyone from the Calgary Sun.
Another thing that should be considered is the financial aspect of the argument.
I wonder if there would be opposition to Kyoto, if it didn't have a large financial impact. I doubt it.
The fact that many Conservative minded people seem to be the ones dismissing global warming, indicates that most people don't look at it from an objective point of view. They believe the sources that best suit there political and financial agenda.
|
10 to 1?
That's somewhat of a stab isn't it? From what I understand the majority may actually be against the global warming theory as it stands though I've seen sources claiming both sides have the numbers.
Bottom line ... it isn't ten to one.
Then you move on to lump those that have some issues with the current science as being conservative, and therefore not objective, and therefore selfish?
Man everything in that paragraph is loaded.
Don't you think that some liberal politicians and voters may have a somewhat subjective view on the environment as well?
Like I said earlier ... I'm not about to claim I know the answer, since I honestly don't (though I doubt you do either). However, shouldn't large nations that plan on spending billions of tax dollars chase down the facts and be sure of these things before taking sides and then stubbornly staying there regardless of new studies that come out?