Posted on 05/11/2007 6:31:55 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
Given 100 scientists, 59 of whom believe in anthropogenic climate change, if I change the minds of 10 of them, does that mean the science has changed, and you scaremongers will shut up?
Is there a link to that 2006 survey? I have never seen it.
Bring in the machine that goes PING!
Very clever!
Now that we know there’s an approximate 800 year lag between temperature increase and CO2 increase and we look at the CO2 increase that started a bit before the Industrial Revolution and continues into the present and go back 800 years from there, do we find a temperature increase back then that spans a several centuries?
They would like all “global warming deniers” to think of whips and red-hot irons, it seems.....
Another one that frames the question beautifully. Thanks for posting!
To the editor:
It’s time to step up our efforts to fight global warming. Global warming is the challenge of our generation.
This Earth Day, I took two steps to reduce my carbon emissions:
— I bicycled to school, the grocery and my house of worship.
— I washed my clothes in cold water and dried them on a clothesline.
If everyone could make a personal commitment we could significantly reduce carbon emissions, a global killer. Reducing CO? pollutants requires city, state, federal, individual and corporate action.
Please don’t wait for the next ice age before we address this serious problem.
Sandra schuab
Aw shucks - thanks for reading - and the authors will appreciate the kind words.
The global warming movement has become a secular religion which has abandoned science for an immutable dogma that global warming is totally human caused and dooms us all. That religion also has its inquisition and anyone who does not believe the dogma is a heretic. Ironically the global warming religion, like its counterpart in the Medieval Church, is now selling indulgences in the form of “carbon credits” to wash away ones global warming sins. Perhaps what is needed is some independent thinker to nail 98 theses on Al Gore’s door.
That’s brilliant - the carbon credits as indulgences - just damn! I can’t wait to use that. Thank you!
Teaser. Only parts 1 and 2 have been published. 3 comes out May 16. Good stuff though.
Yeah - I didn’t scrool all the way down until AFTER I posted. You’d think typing in future dates to fill out the when published field should have tipped me off, huh?
Other than the choice of weapons, it appears to me that we are pretty much the same now as then.
Thanks for that. Very interesting.
Although it should be noted that the author cites this survey to debunk a scientific consensus. However, the survey is mostly of individuals with credentials as environmental managers and are not necessarily scientists -although they may be as well.
It is still pretty good at presenting an overview and shows that although a considerable majority tend to view climate change as an issue that needs prompt attention, it is not a figure so high as the 99% the left would have you believe.
I tend to be more convinced by the “science is not a democracy” argument.
But that brings us back to the main question. Why the urgency on the part of the left to silence debate and punish dissenters? Why are otherwise reputable scientists veering so far from the scientific process?
I can only think of one parallel in recent history --- the consensus reached on the 'science' of Eugenics in the early decades of the 20th century. We now understand not only the horrific consequences of that false consensus but the fact that it was a politically driven consensus.
..He's a denier
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.