Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree..both sides should have been presented. Congress should have info on both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately your starting from the false premise that the hearing was a facting finding excercise. It's not. It's a photo op. Not one of those dem congressmen/women would change their position one iota regardless of who testified. At least their actions exposed the sham for everyone to see.
There is no "other side" to the issue. In 15-20 years, approximately 1 billion people in Southeast Asia will have no water source, due to the melting of the ice cover on the Himalayas. Expect massive migration and civil war. You people in la-la denial land need to wake up.
American Physical Society article on climate sensitivity
In July 2008 Monckton wrote an article about climate sensitivity for the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society.[16][17], concluding: “it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration [surface temperature] will rise not by the 3.26 °K [sic] suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K.”
Some media commentators asserted that the publication of his paper was a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change.[18] In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that 'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.' This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."[19] The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[20] In a response[21], Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". Notwithstanding, Arthur Smith, long-time member at the APS Forum, has identified 125 errors, irrelevancies, and contradictions in the article.[
Also, the "Science and Public Policy Institute" is a misnomer. The primary reason for its existence is to challenge current climate change science. It's basically a global warming skeptics group. Right-wing nutjobs.
Also, the "Science and Public Policy Institute" is a misnomer. The primary reason for its existence is to challenge current climate change science. It's basically a global warming skeptics group. Right-wing nutjobs.
You mean biased like that enviormentalist website you cited earlier?
Quote:
There is no "other side" to the issue. In 15-20 years, approximately 1 billion people in Southeast Asia will have no water source, due to the melting of the ice cover on the Himalayas. Expect massive migration and civil war. You people in la-la denial land need to wake up.
You mean biased like that enviormentalist website you cited earlier?
Are you INSANE? If you truly think that the politically motivated anti-climate change idiocy promoted by ONE SCIENTIST--in concert with a right-wing, Republican organization--somehow overrides the opposite opinion, held by the VAST MAJORITY of the world's climate scientists, you are not living in the real world. That defies simple logic. Because what you are saying, in effect, is that world scientists are in on some nefarious plan to scam the people of the world about climate change. This is simply conspiracy theory of the tinfoil hat variety.
The environmentalist website I cited is highly reputable. The fact that you are so blinded by right-wing ideology that anything AT ALL that comes from a so-called "liberal" point of view--which actually doesn't apply in this case, since many, many climate scientists are apolitical--is somehow suspect--well, that's just sad.
Very true. They obviously are afraid of what he has to say and can't risk the cap & trade grab.
They aren't "afraid" of what he has to say. Gore isn't going to "debate" every crackpot global warming skeptic that comes down the pike. This guy is a politically motivated crank.
They aren't "afraid" of what he has to say. Gore isn't going to "debate" every crackpot global warming skeptic that comes down the pike. This guy is a politically motivated crank.
And Gore's not?
Your side will never - never - win over people to your point of view unless you willing to debate & persuade them. Declaring the discussion over is self defeating. Every incident like this just builds the skepticism, and every skeptic is not going to do anything to change things.
So if you are really concerned about this issue drop the "debate is over" bull pucky and get to work CONVINCING people, not dictating to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
