Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glom
Whether or not you believe that there is a strong anthropogenic influence, you cannot deny that the media and the politicians do not reflect the true state of science. It is a non stop stream of propoganda that gets us worked up. I don't know how it is in America, but no-one would dream of challenging AAGW lest they be burnt alive as a heretic and that's no joke. We don't like what AAGW has become. It has become a vehicle for political agendas and somewhere along the way, the science got left far behind.
|
Yeah, Bush got a LOT of flak when he came out with a skeptical position. Whether you like the guy or not, agree with him or not, I don't think the heat of the response was appropriate for a subject like this. And that is like most discussions I've been in on the subject: The battle lines are drawn, with most people you are either on one side or the other, skepticism not allowed. It isn't a scientific discussion.
For the record, I think there is substantial evidence for anthropogenic influence, but the subject is SO politicized, it is difficult to trust that any information source has not been ideologically tainted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Donnie B.
I think a lot of the broader resistance to Kyoto (and other efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions) have to do with fears of economic and quality-of-life impacts. I don't get the feeling that motivates any of the GW doubters here, though.
|
Kyoto has the cart in front of the horse. If you want to control the climate, then you should research and develop methods to control the climate rather than just put limits on certain gasses in the hope that will do what you want. Kyoto is far too specific, too many interest groups strongly oppose the obvious methods for achieving the gas reductions, it isn't clear what the effect would be, and yes, it could be economically devastating.
Quote:
The science seems pretty solid to me.
I hope it's not a political reaction -- as in, "the Greenpeace wackos are all worked up about this, therefore it must be wrong".
|
I try very hard not to fall into that trap, but I'll admit it isn't easy. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I have very different views on what that means than the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. I believe that people need to be wealthy enough that they can afford to spend time and resources to protect the environment. My impression of these groups is that they just want to hold everything back.