Page 134 of 135 FirstFirst ... 3484124132133134135 LastLast
Results 1,331 to 1,340 of 1347

Thread: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

  1. #1331
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The article's point was that there are reasons people ignore evidence. It's a rather common issue. They rationalize away the evidence. They showed examples of people doing that, and I showed a few more. You went with insulted and forced, which was not the point. The point is people do rationalize away evidence they don't want to accept. It's rather normal.

    This is what your side is doing with GW.
    And I told you that I didn't believe that there are as many people as you think that are doing this rationalizing away of GW, in fact I told you that right or left I believe that people do accept when scientists say that climate is changing, even to some extent that man plays a role, but how significant that role is, or what we are doing about it, and things are being done, is a matter of what makes sense.

    For instance, I started driving trucks 20 years ago....They were belching black smoke, and got about 4 miles a gallon of diesel. Today, I get double that, and the truck I drive touts that it emits cleaner air than it takes in. There are other things over the years in that particular industry that I've seen, Hell, in the 90s I drove for Schwan's, their trucks ran off of propane. So I don't think that people are rationalizing away anything, or at least not to the degree you see.

    I think you see it as such a problem because you think that if people don't agree with everything you say that somehow they are just wrong on everything, and instead of seeing the agreement, you pick away constantly at the minor disagreements.

    I also made clear that it is arrogant to assume we know everything. It is our ignorance that allows us to be fooled. Neither you nor I, nor Code or lop know enough to pretend we know more than the experts. It's easy to parrot a hacks questions, but it's another thing to understand the answers.

    So we are all dependent on people who have put in the years of study and work.
    Well, I don't know code, or lop personally, just as I don't know you personally, or you me, so I won't presume to make that judgement about their education, or ability to have a grasp on the subject at that level. But what I do know is the common sense of the matter, and that is even if I believe that GW exists, and that man has played a role, I am not arrogant enough to believe that at this point it is a catastrophic crisis, nor do I think we can necessarily change it by planting a tree then continuing our actions. This is a long term thing...Hell Joe, I am old enough to remember as a kid the talk of being able to nearly walk across portions of Lake Erie in the summer because of the pollution, and growing up in Lansing I remember the Grand River being so polluted that the fish were off limits to eat if you caught anything other than Carp. Today that has all changed, the Grand River is beautiful again, and Lake Erie is if not totally cleaned up, then well on its way. Mother Nature is a wonder, it seems to repair the damage we cause on its own.

    I also remember when the scientists whom you are putting your faith in were screaming about a looming Ice Age, and that we were all going to freeze, and starve. I remember books that gained traction in liberal circles called the population bomb that touted that we had to slow, if not reverse the amount of people on the planet. And I remember in this latest 'the world is ending' panic, how the world seized on the science to push wealth redistribution globally, through the creation of so called 'carbon credits', or another fiat currency if you will, where you don't really do anything to change your behavior, but rather buy worthless paper to "offset" your behavior. It's a scam, and people know this. And it is this sort of thing that has put the dagger in the heart of anything substantive coming out of the science at the moment, and I would say that silly schemes like this have damaged the credibility of science, and certainly hyperbolic scientists like Hensen and their wild claims.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #1332
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    And I told you that I didn't believe that there are as many people as you think that are doing this rationalizing away of GW, in fact I told you that right or left I believe that people do accept when scientists say that climate is changing, even to some extent that man plays a role, but how significant that role is, or what we are doing about it, and things are being done, is a matter of what makes sense.

    For instance, I started driving trucks 20 years ago....They were belching black smoke, and got about 4 miles a gallon of diesel. Today, I get double that, and the truck I drive touts that it emits cleaner air than it takes in. There are other things over the years in that particular industry that I've seen, Hell, in the 90s I drove for Schwan's, their trucks ran off of propane. So I don't think that people are rationalizing away anything, or at least not to the degree you see.

    I think you see it as such a problem because you think that if people don't agree with everything you say that somehow they are just wrong on everything, and instead of seeing the agreement, you pick away constantly at the minor disagreements.



    Well, I don't know code, or lop personally, just as I don't know you personally, or you me, so I won't presume to make that judgement about their education, or ability to have a grasp on the subject at that level. But what I do know is the common sense of the matter, and that is even if I believe that GW exists, and that man has played a role, I am not arrogant enough to believe that at this point it is a catastrophic crisis, nor do I think we can necessarily change it by planting a tree then continuing our actions. This is a long term thing...Hell Joe, I am old enough to remember as a kid the talk of being able to nearly walk across portions of Lake Erie in the summer because of the pollution, and growing up in Lansing I remember the Grand River being so polluted that the fish were off limits to eat if you caught anything other than Carp. Today that has all changed, the Grand River is beautiful again, and Lake Erie is if not totally cleaned up, then well on its way. Mother Nature is a wonder, it seems to repair the damage we cause on its own.

    I also remember when the scientists whom you are putting your faith in were screaming about a looming Ice Age, and that we were all going to freeze, and starve. I remember books that gained traction in liberal circles called the population bomb that touted that we had to slow, if not reverse the amount of people on the planet. And I remember in this latest 'the world is ending' panic, how the world seized on the science to push wealth redistribution globally, through the creation of so called 'carbon credits', or another fiat currency if you will, where you don't really do anything to change your behavior, but rather buy worthless paper to "offset" your behavior. It's a scam, and people know this. And it is this sort of thing that has put the dagger in the heart of anything substantive coming out of the science at the moment, and I would say that silly schemes like this have damaged the credibility of science, and certainly hyperbolic scientists like Hensen and their wild claims.
    J I want you to separate for just a second. You get too caught up in stereotypes.

    1) Science = what is (GW with man playing a role in it) and 1/2 what to do about it.

    2) politics = 1/2 what to do about it.


    So, when you say GW isn't real, you're addressing the science and not the politics. That's what we've been debating.

    When you ask what can we do about it, the science 1/2 is only about what is possible. The political 1/2 who gets affected and what people benefit and who is hurt. Not that those are the reasons for doing anything, but that those consequences have to be addressed.

    You tend to deal in what seems like absolutes like all liberals kick puppies, everything the EPA does is bad, all regulations are bad, and anyone who says GW is real and man plays a role wants to order you to do something. Rarely do you get specific or acknowledge that good people can take the real information and still disagree, honestly disagree, on what needs to be done. When they disagree, they're not fascists or destroying America or hate success. They just see the what should be done differently.

    And yes, if someone today is saying man doesn't play a significant, not complete, role in GW, they are in denial. With that thought, I link this article:

    Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

    Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/op...of-denial.html

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #1333
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    And I told you that I didn't believe that there are as many people as you think that are doing this rationalizing away of GW, in fact I told you that right or left I believe that people do accept when scientists say that climate is changing, even to some extent that man plays a role, but how significant that role is, or what we are doing about it, and things are being done, is a matter of what makes sense.

    For instance, I started driving trucks 20 years ago....They were belching black smoke, and got about 4 miles a gallon of diesel. Today, I get double that, and the truck I drive touts that it emits cleaner air than it takes in. There are other things over the years in that particular industry that I've seen, Hell, in the 90s I drove for Schwan's, their trucks ran off of propane. So I don't think that people are rationalizing away anything, or at least not to the degree you see.

    I think you see it as such a problem because you think that if people don't agree with everything you say that somehow they are just wrong on everything, and instead of seeing the agreement, you pick away constantly at the minor disagreements.



    Well, I don't know code, or lop personally, just as I don't know you personally, or you me, so I won't presume to make that judgement about their education, or ability to have a grasp on the subject at that level. But what I do know is the common sense of the matter, and that is even if I believe that GW exists, and that man has played a role, I am not arrogant enough to believe that at this point it is a catastrophic crisis, nor do I think we can necessarily change it by planting a tree then continuing our actions. This is a long term thing...Hell Joe, I am old enough to remember as a kid the talk of being able to nearly walk across portions of Lake Erie in the summer because of the pollution, and growing up in Lansing I remember the Grand River being so polluted that the fish were off limits to eat if you caught anything other than Carp. Today that has all changed, the Grand River is beautiful again, and Lake Erie is if not totally cleaned up, then well on its way. Mother Nature is a wonder, it seems to repair the damage we cause on its own.

    I also remember when the scientists whom you are putting your faith in were screaming about a looming Ice Age, and that we were all going to freeze, and starve. I remember books that gained traction in liberal circles called the population bomb that touted that we had to slow, if not reverse the amount of people on the planet. And I remember in this latest 'the world is ending' panic, how the world seized on the science to push wealth redistribution globally, through the creation of so called 'carbon credits', or another fiat currency if you will, where you don't really do anything to change your behavior, but rather buy worthless paper to "offset" your behavior. It's a scam, and people know this. And it is this sort of thing that has put the dagger in the heart of anything substantive coming out of the science at the moment, and I would say that silly schemes like this have damaged the credibility of science, and certainly hyperbolic scientists like Hensen and their wild claims.
    Now, much of the regulations you denounce led to many of the improvements you talk about.

    And yes, people are in denial. That's what feeds the anti-science movement. From smoking to GW to vaccines, people deny the science. And their are motivations for doing that. But if you listen to the science, use the best evidence, and act accordingly, that is proper.

    As for being wrong (though we could debate that I won't), that's why you keep an open mind. But you don't deny. You can't logically because you simply don't know enough. Instead, you act according to the evidence until you have more evidence. That's the logical thing to do.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #1334
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    J I want you to separate for just a second. You get too caught up in stereotypes.

    1) Science = what is (GW with man playing a role in it) and 1/2 what to do about it.

    2) politics = 1/2 what to do about it.
    Not trying to dissect sentence by sentence here but just a couple of things I have to point out on their own....

    If I am guilty of 'stereotyping' in this argument, then so are you my friend. As for your what Science equals, and what politics plays a role, I would disagree only to degrees...Science is continually figuring out what has gone on, and using that data to attempt to predict what may occur in the future. On the point of 'what to do about it', I think that is the part where it is politicized, and that has hurt the findings.

    On the political front, when you have spokespeople like Al Gore out there, putting out there how everyone should react to these revelations while living a lifestyle himself that he would condemn if talking about someone else, it is just too disingenuous to take seriously. Then there is the Chicago Climate Exchange he tried to get going not too long ago, and the reveal of what a scam that was.

    R.I.P.: Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange Has Died | National Review Online

    As the opinion piece points out, CCX was nothing but a redistribution scam, and the UN plays into this trying to take it global in creating this fiat money called carbon credits, and fleece the wealthier nations, to benefit poorer nations in essence punishing successful nations for their success.

    So, when you say GW isn't real...
    This is where you fly off the rails...I have, (ahem, now listen up) NEVER SAID that GW wasn't real. I do question the role man plays in it, and I do question just what you think we should be doing about it, but to continually read what I post, then come back with this kind of crap is either intentional lying about what I say, or a serious miscomprehension of same.

    The political 1/2 who gets affected and what people benefit and who is hurt. Not that those are the reasons for doing anything, but that those consequences have to be addressed.

    You tend to deal in what seems like absolutes like all liberals kick puppies, everything the EPA does is bad, all regulations are bad, and anyone who says GW is real and man plays a role wants to order you to do something. Rarely do you get specific or acknowledge that good people can take the real information and still disagree, honestly disagree, on what needs to be done. When they disagree, they're not fascists or destroying America or hate success. They just see the what should be done differently.

    And yes, if someone today is saying man doesn't play a significant, not complete, role in GW, they are in denial. With that thought, I link this article:

    Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

    Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/op...of-denial.html
    Let's stick to climate change shall we? I think that using a politically charged term like "climate deniers" not only mischaracterizes the opposition to progressive tax based scams like carbon credit trading, but is a terribly offensive label to use against your opponents in a debate. To liken the opposition as something similar to holocaust deniers is despicable and worthy of scorn. If you think that you can have a reasoned discussion with someone that uses this type of slur against people that they disagree with, you are mistaken.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #1335
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Now, much of the regulations you denounce led to many of the improvements you talk about.
    I am fully aware of that, but we must also be vigilant to make sure that regulations make sense, and are not used as weapons of the state against the peoples rights either.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #1336
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Here's one I'm sure you can remember seeing before:

    Matalin said, "for the last decade the climate has been cooling." That suggests there has been a distinct reversal of the steady warming that scientists have documented for many years. But a review of the data shows that's not the case. The numbers show that in the past 10 years, global temperatures have not continued their sharp increase. But they have not cooled either. In fact, some years in the last decade have been hotter than the previous years. At most, they could be described as hitting a plateau. But they haven't cooled as Matalin said. We find her claim False.

    PolitiFact | Matalin claims the Earth is cooling


    You will likely ignore this again as you did last time, and as you have the others. But try not to forget that you got this one. And maybe go back and read the other posts you forgot.


    You will have to cut and paste the silver bullet from this political site that addresses the points you are trying to refute. As a refresher, this is what you are trying to refute:

    "You have yet to explain why the warming effect of CO2 has stopped.

    You have yet to explain why no scientific organization on the planet has accepted this to be a theory.

    You have yet to link to the test that can falsify this notion which is the key characteristic of a Scientific Hypothesis.

    You have yet to explain why the warming trend that we currently enjoy started 150 years before the cause you cite came into being.

    All you have is a strong belief. You have no proof at all and an infinite amount of faith. You might as well be tossing virgins into a volcano.

    If you do have proof, however, feel free to present it."

    Whatever you find is more convincing when it comes from science based sites rather than political sites.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  7. #1337
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    Hmm. You went from " the statistics are misrepresented" to " the data is biased". I guess when someone shows you you're wrong, you can always go back to the old conspiracy theories.


    Yes. Both are accurate statements. The organization that compiled the results used volunteers symathetic to its desired result and they delivered the desired result by torturing the numbers until they said what they wanted them to say. Your characterization: " the statistics are misrepresented" to " the data is biased" is spot on.

    I asked you to find something on this agenda driven, biased site that proves they are not biased and not agenda driven.

    Having failed in this, you have obviously decided to deflect instead. Empty, but expected.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  8. #1338
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The article's point was that there are reasons people ignore evidence. It's a rather common issue. They rationalize away the evidence. They showed examples of people doing that, and I showed a few more. You went with insulted and forced, which was not the point. The point is people do rationalize away evidence they don't want to accept. It's rather normal.

    This is what your side is doing with GW.

    I also made clear that it is arrogant to assume we know everything. It is our ignorance that allows us to be fooled. Neither you nor I, nor Code or lop know enough to pretend we know more than the experts. It's easy to parrot a hacks questions, but it's another thing to understand the answers.

    So we are all dependent on people who have put in the years of study and work.


    I accept that I don't know it all.

    By the empty results of those who are presented as experts, I accept that they, too, are not adequately prepared to make an accurate prediction, model all of the variables or depart from their allegiance to the notion that CO2 can increase the climate's temperature in spite of the firm knowledge that it has never done this before at these concentrations. They have arrived at the conclusion before they have collected the proofs.

    Because I DON'T know it all and it is obvious that nobody else does either, I have doubts.

    YOU on the other hand, are absolutely sure of this tripe which is unfounded, unproven and unsupported by actual, real science.

    As you say, it is ignorance that allows us to be fooled. I would prefer to have a little more actual, real world science and proof before diving head long into your level of dogmatic allegiance to a mysterious and contradictory litany of confusion.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  9. #1339
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    J I want you to separate for just a second. You get too caught up in stereotypes.

    1) Science = what is (GW with man playing a role in it) and 1/2 what to do about it.

    2) politics = 1/2 what to do about it.


    So, when you say GW isn't real, you're addressing the science and not the politics. That's what we've been debating.

    When you ask what can we do about it, the science 1/2 is only about what is possible. The political 1/2 who gets affected and what people benefit and who is hurt. Not that those are the reasons for doing anything, but that those consequences have to be addressed.

    You tend to deal in what seems like absolutes like all liberals kick puppies, everything the EPA does is bad, all regulations are bad, and anyone who says GW is real and man plays a role wants to order you to do something. Rarely do you get specific or acknowledge that good people can take the real information and still disagree, honestly disagree, on what needs to be done. When they disagree, they're not fascists or destroying America or hate success. They just see the what should be done differently.

    And yes, if someone today is saying man doesn't play a significant, not complete, role in GW, they are in denial. With that thought, I link this article:

    Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

    Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/op...of-denial.html


    So Michael Griffin, the head of NASA is one of the folks that you are dismissing as what? A creationist? A Climate denier? An anti vaccine campaigner? What?

    There are real live conflicts with this notion that prevent it from being classed as a Theory, prevent it from being a useful tool in making predictions and prevent anyone from specifying a test to falsify it because merely examining it falsifies it.

    What are you so certain of something that is not real?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=10571499
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  10. #1340
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Not trying to dissect sentence by sentence here but just a couple of things I have to point out on their own....

    If I am guilty of 'stereotyping' in this argument, then so are you my friend. As for your what Science equals, and what politics plays a role, I would disagree only to degrees...Science is continually figuring out what has gone on, and using that data to attempt to predict what may occur in the future. On the point of 'what to do about it', I think that is the part where it is politicized, and that has hurt the findings.

    On the political front, when you have spokespeople like Al Gore out there, putting out there how everyone should react to these revelations while living a lifestyle himself that he would condemn if talking about someone else, it is just too disingenuous to take seriously. Then there is the Chicago Climate Exchange he tried to get going not too long ago, and the reveal of what a scam that was.

    R.I.P.: Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange Has Died | National Review Online

    As the opinion piece points out, CCX was nothing but a redistribution scam, and the UN plays into this trying to take it global in creating this fiat money called carbon credits, and fleece the wealthier nations, to benefit poorer nations in essence punishing successful nations for their success.



    This is where you fly off the rails...I have, (ahem, now listen up) NEVER SAID that GW wasn't real. I do question the role man plays in it, and I do question just what you think we should be doing about it, but to continually read what I post, then come back with this kind of crap is either intentional lying about what I say, or a serious miscomprehension of same.



    Let's stick to climate change shall we? I think that using a politically charged term like "climate deniers" not only mischaracterizes the opposition to progressive tax based scams like carbon credit trading, but is a terribly offensive label to use against your opponents in a debate. To liken the opposition as something similar to holocaust deniers is despicable and worthy of scorn. If you think that you can have a reasoned discussion with someone that uses this type of slur against people that they disagree with, you are mistaken.
    I will have to look back, but I think and others have said GW and mans role was largely made up. Yes, I did use short hand, but that was the part I was addressing.

    As for the National Review, a publication that skews things badly, Al Gore is not an scientist. When talking science, his name should never come up. Real scientist thank him drawing attention to the issue, but do not consider his presentation to be equal to a scientific report. And this is where these sources let you down. They blurr the science and the politics, leaving a false impression.

    Btw, if you read the entire article I linked, I believe you'll find climate change in there.

    The point is, the science alone says man plays a role. The science alone suggests we can help with some actions. But don't confuse politicians with scientist. And understand, money if not politics plays a larger role with skeptics who work for companies that want there to be skeptism. Never from get the lessons from big tobacco. Make a false controversy, and th willing will follow.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •