View Single Post
Old 04-06-2007, 11:13 AM   #8
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
There are nearly as many "scientists" that disagree with your stance as there are that agree with it
That is a boldfaced lie and you know it. Find me one MAJOR scientific group who disputes global warming. Let me name a few that acknowledge global warming and our influence.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science:
...among many others

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists... That's strange, the OIL COMPANIES are the only people that dispute global warming, and you are buying it.

That doesn't make you feel like you are being duped? You should. You are buying into the big corporations attempt to tell you that global warming isn't happening, dispite the fact that every other scientific group IN THE WORLD says otherwise.

This is no different then believing the tobacco companies' "research groups" that tell you smoking may not be bad for you, despite the advice of ever doctor you see.

The most persuasive evidence for the scientific consensus on global warming comes from the Fourth Assessment Report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report says it is "nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame" for global climate change and explicitly recommends nations to "take prompt action." A statement endorsing this content of this report was unanimously signed by the national science academies of "the Big Eleven" - the G8 nations plus Brazil, India and China - who are together the 11 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

Unless we are to believe that the leading scientists of all of these nations are flat-out wrong, we should seriously question why there are so many articles appearing in the popular media questioning the threat posed by global warming. In an age marked by 24-hour news coverage and a proliferation of new news sources in all varieties of media, it's difficult for the media to act as one entity anymore, especially given the hyper-competitive dynamic. However, "the media" still makes value judgments all the time about what to publish when they routinely and purposefully ignore certain extremist positions and effectively exclude them from the political dialogue.

If 99 percent of scientists are correct, we should clearly follow their advice. On the other hand, if we craft policies based on the assumption that global warming is real and find out that 99 percent of scientists turned out to be wrong, what's the worst possible consequence? Funneling less money to nations that sponsor terrorism? Having less smog? Some people might say economic harms would result, but even that logic breaks down. At some point in the next few decades, oil will become scarce enough that a price shock would absolutely cripple the American economy - unless we start doing something now to address our overconsumption of oil.

The best argument those who oppose the adoption of an aggressive technological investment in reducing carbon dioxide emissions can make is: "Let's wait another 10 years." But as my grandfather used to say, "Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today?" The positive economic effects that would follow from such an investment - millions of newly created jobs and the possibility of discovering auxiliary technologies (like we did when we went to the moon) certainly outweigh the negative ones.


http://media.www.browndailyherald.co...-2827886.shtml
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline