Quote:
Originally Posted by TennTradition  I agree completely with your sentiments. There is nothing gained from further polarizing the issue...and we absolutely don't need more rhetoric. However, I think that we probably disagree on how much we know about man's impact...or know about the extent of our impact. The IPCC (and its task forces which are made up scientists from around the world) has combed through the scientific literature to make assertions about the extent of man's impact. I tend to accept those conclusions. I'm somewhat beyond the temperature issue...and now I'm more interested in how well we can predict the effects of that temperature increase - and I think that this could certainly be better (especially considering the $$ if we do something for no reason or don't do something when we should have).
Do you think the issue is that we need more studies...Or is the issue a perception that the existing studies are biased and therefore null and void? ....or is it that the politicians are just saying these things to make dramatic appeals but don't really understand it ... and aren't fully assessing the impact of their actions - either on the climate or the economy? |
All of the above really. I think the studies can be viewed as biased. There are some that agree and others that don't, they know much more than I so I have to trust their judgment. If a few studies come to the same conclusion from different angles then I would have to agree with the assessment.
Now we come to the issue of what to do. There are those in the "global warming agenda" that want to use it to further their agenda (America and capitalism=evil) and level headed and practical people of all kinds need to go out of their way to marginalize them. People like Al Gore need to also be marginalized because it obvious to many he promotes and imbellishes it for monetary gain, at least that is how many perceive it. Until this is done many will not trust in the issue.