It isn't scientific fact.
Look, Fish-Bulb, you know I like you. But the truth is that There is not enough evidence on Global Warming for it to be considered "Fact". There are equal amounts of data on both sides of the issue. I'm not saying we don't need to clean up. I'm just saying Global Warming isn't the reason we need to clean up.
It's kinda like "Evolution". Technically it's not a law, or a fact. it's, scientifically speaking, a Theory. Which is a lot more firm and substantiated than they layman would realize, but it can't be called a "fact".
but see that's the problem, there aren't "equal amounts of data" by any stretch of the imagination.
a good example is the "OMG! 400 scientists said it's not true!!!!
" but the thing is, they are a rather small ( comparatively) section of the scientific community.
there has been some instances in which the supposed counter argument is discredited by the scientist they are quoting .
and sure, they have called evidence of climate change "unequivocal" as early as a year ago, and the much fabled "400" being explained like a year before they came out.
As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available)
of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,
2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news
do not qualify as
climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a
$10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have
400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money
but then,
Logical science must be biased right?
basically, like It says in the article 2%.....I don't know, but I have a feeling that a lot of the people that are posting about this wouldn't take a new medicine if they had a 98% chance of dying.
I doubt that they'd say "there's far from a consensus on how horrible a death I'd face" and stuff like that.
because I really don't understand how people can say that there's equal amounts of data on either side, plus, they make it into a money issue.
they make it ( and I'm not saying you, I'm saying others) into a "change is expensive" when it's really not that expensive.
are there pieces of legislation inspired by this that make no sense?
yes.
does that mean that climate change doesn't exist? NO!
I means, seriously, in the 50's they said cigarettes "aided" digestion, and now we know they can cause cancer, how come nobody cites the previous stance as evidence that cigarettes must be good for you?
there's
THIS article from September which should set off alarm bells in anyone's head.
or the article from scientific American ( they probably have an agenda SCIENTIFIC AGENDA!!!! THE HORROR!!!) with no short amount of experts ( well, people outraged that they support the "Al Gore" view on climate change, doesn't seem personal at all does it?)
and overall, the impact of man on the environment? 25%
25% seems like a lot, given the fact that some of the other factors include the ****ing sun! so yeah, when you can share the blame with something that can impact different planets at the same time?
maybe you should start to worry about it.
t:
