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.
This is insane. I hate when science becomes political. Man-made global warming is a shaky theory at best and fraudulent at worst. It belongs among scientists and researchers to find a solid answer. Instead, it has been recognized for it's potential in power play and now every retard on the planet thinks they know what they are talking about and attacks the other side without being able to back up facts.
You actually prove his point. You can't come up with facts which disprove global climate change. You're not interested in educating yourself in on the issues. You didn't even read the link I provided. It's all about hating the liberals. Whatever.
When scientists come up with facts that prove climate change as necessarily being caused by humans, I will be the first on board to approve a legitimate form of cap & trade.
Some scientists have already offered their thumbs down on human motivated climate change. Since science isn't a democracy, the majority is irrelevant here.
Providing presumed unbiased articles from folks with a biased agenda just doesn't look good ... especially when the third party is using the presumed unbiased article written by a biased source to prove a point ...
When scientists come up with facts that prove climate change as necessarily being caused by humans, I will be the first on board to approve a legitimate form of cap & trade.
Like I said, you were provided with a link to facts. You choose to deny them without even reading them. Global scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans. Pretty amazing that all of these scientists and institutions have managed to orchestrate such a massive fraud, designed to destroy the world economy. Wow.
You actually prove his point. You can't come up with facts which disprove global climate change. You're not interested in educating yourself in on the issues. You didn't even read the link I provided. It's all about hating the liberals. Whatever.
It's too bad the supposedly well educated Krugman isn't providing any citations in his article. Kind of important considering he's speaking on a subject he's not qualified in.
Providing presumed unbiased articles from folks with a biased agenda just doesn't look good ... especially when the third party is using the presumed unbiased article written by a biased source to prove a point ...
What's the "agenda," bigskydude? To destroy the world economy? Really? Climatologists from France, Spain, China, Australia--all in cahoots to raise the electricity rates of Americans?
It's too bad the supposedly well educated Krugman isn't providing any citations in his article. Kind of important considering he's speaking on a subject he's not qualified in.
What would be the point? You wouldn't research them, anyway.
What's the "agenda," bigskydude? To destroy the world economy? Really? Climatologists from France, Spain, China, Australia--all in cahoots to raise the electricity rates of Americans?
Okay, then.
These scientists are ensuring their grant money keeps rollin' in. As someone intimately familiar with the process of applying for research grants, I can tell you that it's much easier to get them when you can manufacture problems to be solved.
You actually prove his point. You can't come up with facts which disprove global climate change. You're not interested in educating yourself in on the issues. You didn't even read the link I provided..
You're the one that needs educating instead of toeing the party and media line. Open you mind a little to the fact they may be wrong and do some research. There's plenty of information available on this topic at complete odds with what Mr Krugman and other like yourself would suggest.
To their credit the environmentalist and liberal media have done an excellent job of stirring the pot and keeping this brewing going back the the 90's. This has been a political from the start and has only grown over time. How political can it be? Let's go back to Clean Air Act passed many years ago:
Quote:
The EPA vs. Ed Krug (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html - broken link)
The report ignited a firestorm of protest. Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and the Environment, said the assessment was "intellectually dishonest" and badgered NAPAP witnesses before his committee. Environmentalists belittled the document because it came from the Reagan administration. They were especially angry at J. Lawrence Kulp, whom Reagan had appointed NAPAP director.
Scientists, however, generally endorsed the study. Documents from the International Conference on Acid Precipitation in 1988 show participants agreed with most of NAPAP's conclusions almost unanimously. In fact, the scientists from Canada agreed with Krug on the important watershed acidification theory, which was partly at odds with the Interim Assessment. In other words, NAPAP's conclusions were scientifically correct, if not politically correct.
When James Mahoney became NAPAP director in 1988, he assured Scheuer's subcommittee that he "would not subscribe...at this time" to the view that acid rain would not harm any more Northeastern lakes. Three years later, he would subscribe to that position on 60 Minutes.
NAPAP was ready to release a final findings document in 1989. Under congressional mandate, the document was supposed to guide priorities for the Clean Air Act. But the EPA, now led by Bush appointee and zealous environmentalist William Reilly, refused to approve it. After much revision, the EPA finally allowed the document to be released on July 27, 1990--long after Bush, who in his 1988 presidential campaign had promised to be the "environmental president," signed the new law.
The Findings Document differed little from the Interim Assessment. An exhaustive, worldwide scientific search said acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a crisis. The much-feared "silent spring" had not arrived.
After authorizing nearly $600 million for the NAPAP study, Congress refused to hear the good news. One committee met to examine the results, but only Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) appeared at the public hearing.
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.
