What particular scientific background do Sheryl Crowe and Bruce Cockburn have that make them qualified to shill for the pro-Kyoto crowd?
What Scientific background do the following organizations have?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
This is known as "cherry picking". You can't make fun of the lack of scientific qualifications of your opponent's supporters and not open yourself up to an equivalent charge against the Global Warming supporters.
The OISM is a notorious organization which is not exactly known for its stellar credentials, I believe the founder created a home schooling program which was intended to fight against socialism.
I would also like to point out that scientific consensus does NOT equal scientific fact. Science is not a democratic institution where voting on something makes it so. For instance, when Einstein put forward a general theory on relativity, the scientific consensus of the day was that he was wrong. At one point, the scientific consensus was that the atom could never be split. 30 years ago (mid 1970s) there was a strong scientific consensus that the planet would enter an Ice age by the 1990s. Do you see where I am going with this?
According to medical researchers paid by big tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer, you can't compare Einstein with scientists who are paid by companies which would see their profits do down if we switched to renewable energy.
IMHO, climate change always happens- we just don't notice it very well because we only live about 80 years, which makes most people's frame of reference too short. Are GHG's changing the climate? I'm not sure. I see, scientifically, how it is possible. I just don't know if it is actually happening. The interaction between atmosphere and the oceans (the major drivers of climate on Earth) are actually surprisingly poorly understood.
That's understandable, however the vast majority of scientists who have stellar credentials disagree.
What I do know, however that Canada is a large and cold country. For us to quit hydrocarbon fuels cold turkey would not only destroy our economy, but would probably kill a few million of us as well.
Yeah, those liberal radicals really want to see million's of Canadian's dead.
Like CSA and several others here, I am not particularly pleased with your style of argument. You frequently belittle those who disagree with you or point out gaping flaws in your evidence.
Not really, I have provided links supporting my view and have corrected myself when proven wrong. It's simply people getting angry because they don't agree with somebody else's opinion. If I started going on some rant calling people [excuse the language], fucknuts, turds, whatever, then it's fair to say that I have unfairly slandered people.
We are not neandrathals for refusing to be stampeded with the rest of the herd without asking first if it is a good idea to run and, if it's not to much trouble, are we about to jump ourselves off of a cliff while trying to solve a problem that might not even turn out to be a problem.
The thing is though that the science is there, and when we say lets wait 50 years before making a decision on climate change, I highly doubt it'll really make much of a difference then.
We are not neandrathals for refusing to be stampeded with the rest of the herd without asking first if it is a good idea to run and, if it's not to much trouble, are we about to jump ourselves off of a cliff while trying to solve a problem that might not even turn out to be a problem. As a personal note, I get very worried when large groups of people get panicky about a subject and begin clamouring for politicians to do something, ANYTHING.
I'm not exactly running with the herd on this topic.
Anyway- keep in mind that many of us here have been through more than one of these doomsday scare scenarios over the past decades and have learned some sceptism. You should, too.
I'm more skeptical of science bought by big oil.
All I can say is yes, you do "fail to see". I think deliberately.
See what? So far you have shown no sources to back up your arguments, and much of the argument here has simply been an attack on the environmental movement and bashing people who support fighting global warming as eco-terrorists. I guess I fail to see how the vast majority of scientists with stellar credentials, 132 countries, the majority of American major cities, each one of the major political parties in Canada, and a large majority of Canada has been duped into being destroyed and killing off million's of people by supporting renewable energy, driving hybrid cars, and becoming more sustainable.
How in creation do you expect to persuade anyone, or to share your thoughts
in this manner?
I have backed up my thoughts with the support of scientific organizations and countless links to my sources. So far you have none, my manner is not arrogant, it simply makes no sense for me to buy into your notion that because you have no sources, no links, no articles, that I should buy into what you have to say.
Some of the trolls have been fun. You haven't been.
Yeah, that's mature. I disagree with you, thus you must be a troll. :
Get over yourself, if you somehow have failed to make me see its simply due to the lack of any credible sources beyond the talk here about million's in Canada being killed due to supporting tougher environmental regulations to combat climate change.
What a shock....I gave you the opportunity to redeem yourself by answering a direct question, and you dodged it.
If your referring to Mars heating up, you simply have to read the National Geographic link provided.
