Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (tax credit, electric, regulations)
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.
That is exactly what the climate change deniers are attempting to do with the lists of dissenting "scientists" etc. This dissent isn't coming from the scientific community, it's coming from corporate energy producers. The National Academy of Science isn't dissenting, it's PR firms hired by organization like Exxon Mobil spreading misinformation.
Do you acknowledge that there is more than a bit of political posturing on the part of the proponents of the Global Warming theory, as well?
Be careful in answering this if you want to be taken seriously as someone who is honest about both sides of the issue. Remember the quote that I gave that made it infinitely clear that political posturing is going on? Guess whose post that was from?
Do you acknowledge that there is more than a bit of political posturing on the part of the proponents of the Global Warming theory, as well?
Be careful in answering this if you want to be taken seriously as someone who is honest about both sides of the issue. Remember the quote that I gave that made it infinitely clear that political posturing is going on? Guess whose post that was from?
Actually the question for believers in the scientific analysis is what policy level activities should be taken and when. The policy level decisions happen at the political level.
The debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is happening is actually about done in the scientific community. Outside of Internet message boards it doesn't seem to be a significant question, even to the general public.
How about cleaning up the air, bays, rivers and ground water supplies, you know REAL problems instead of worrying about global warming? We have immediate problems being ignored over politicized hysteria and unproven theories.
Greens, start taking back your movement.
In what sense is it one or the other? Calling agw "unproven theories" shows a hard vacuum where the science needs to be. The important features of AGW were in the textbooks before WWII.
Actually the question for believers in the scientific analysis is what policy level activities should be taken and when. The policy level decisions happen at the political level.
The debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is happening is actually about done in the scientific community. Outside of Internet message boards it doesn't seem to be a significant question, even to the general public.
Right. The Bush Administration put up a tremendous effort to convince the public that there was a "debate" going on in the scientific community. The Neocons hang onto it because they are mad they first heard of any of it through Al Gore, and they imagine themselves to be smart, well-informed people. That makes it impossible for them to change their minds. Information has nothing to do with it, it's strictly an emotional issue.
Right. The Bush Administration put up a tremendous effort to convince the public that there was a "debate" going on in the scientific community. The Neocons hang onto it because they are mad they first heard of any of it through Al Gore, and they imagine themselves to be smart, well-informed people. That makes it impossible for them to change their minds. Information has nothing to do with it, it's strictly an emotional issue.
Surveys indicate a growing awareness even among Republicans. There's nothing really "democratic" about this issue. Many of our strongest environmentalists historically were Republicans -- Teddy Roosevelt come immediately to mind. I think you're right, it's envy of Al Gore's prominence that seems to drive a lot of this.
This is why I trust very little that comes out of the media, overhyped is too small a word to say the least. As I see it you cannot trust anything reported in the media. They report bad news and that is it and apprently in this case the "jouranalist" is making stuff up...
when the media is ranting and raving about something you should watch the legislators. when they start with the hyperbole it's normally to sway public opinion in favor of some Orwellian legislation that ultimately gives govt more control. this is no different and i expect that gw legislation will be passed under this administration. who will benefit? time will tell but i'd hazzard a guess and say some massive corporations.
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming. Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
[GROAN!] Not the paid endorser again! You know when I was a boy every single cigarette company had an MD endorsement in their advertising, "proving" that cigarettes are safe. Have you asked this guy if he ever fires up?
[GROAN!] Not the paid endorser again! You know when I was a boy every single cigarette company had an MD endorsement in their advertising, "proving" that cigarettes are safe. Have you asked this guy if he ever fires up?
maybe you should supply yourself with an education and open your mind up to both sides of the debate.
[GROAN!] Not the paid endorser again! You know when I was a boy every single cigarette company had an MD endorsement in their advertising, "proving" that cigarettes are safe. Have you asked this guy if he ever fires up?
Sort of like Al Gore endorsing global warming so that he can get his money from the carbon credit system? It goes both ways... are you like rlchurch and blind to ideology as well?
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.
