Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
So are you flat out denying that the raise in recent temperatures are of natural causes? Corcoran is not the only one who has written an article like this before.
|
I can't say for certain. I am not a climatologist, and neither is Corcoran. In fact, Corcoran's credentials barely qualify him to do what he does, which is write on economics, so any of his comments on the subject matter should be taken with a grain of salt. The guy has been run over for his reporting in the past and continues to get run over today. Him making the claim of "junk science" is almost as hypocritical as the Intelligent Designers making similar claims. The science is not on his side of the argument, and no matter how many times he claims "junk science" it does change the fact he is on the short end of the science stick.
Quote:
|
Do you believe that the evidence is inconclusive or do you flat out believe that man is contributing to global warming?
|
Personally, I believe that man has an impact on his environment and that it makes complete sense that we are contributing to the polution of the atmosphere and that it is having a negative impact on the biosphere as a whole. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just look at the smog over any city. Just look at the pollution that chokes out rivers and lakes. We are doing damage to the only planet we have, and we're too fricken arrogant (or stupid) to recognize the fact. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make stuff go away. It only piles up around you.
Quote:
|
There needs to be some non politically motivated research done on this topic. This is kinda getting out of hand.
|
Non-politically motivated research? WTF are you talking about? The research has been going on for almost a century, and politics were never a part of it until someone told big business they had to stop poluting the planet. The "political" research started with the think tank lobbies got involved and started tossing around big money for "scientists" to do studies that would contradict the accepted theory.
That's what these think tanks do. They are paid to obfuscate and produce conjecture that bring into question the validity of any position. If they can some how turn factual evidence into opinion, they have a chance to defeat that position. This is exactly what they have managed to do. They have obfuscated the discussion by promoting every theory that is in conflict with the CO2 theory. That would be fine, if these other theories were in alignment with each other, but they are not. These theories contradict each other as well, meaning the only connection between them is that they disagree with the accepted theory. This is like having 100 mechanics in a room, and having 70 of them agree the problem with a car is the fuel injector. The 30 others clamor and make a lot of noise about their disagreement, and that it's another system, but when pressed on why they disagree, they can find no common ground in the arguments other than they disagree with fuel injector being the issue. If they promoted a concise theory that had each other's support, then more credibility could be lent to them. But when there is no concensus among the decenting voices, how much credibility can you give them?
That is my biggest problem with the non-CO2 voices. They each have their own theory, and they continue to disagree with everyone else as well. In reality, they are a very small minority, because they have no concesus of their own. That's why I don't think they have the right to hold things up any further. They are marginalized, because in the big picture, they are marginal.
