Originally Posted by bac
Let's begin with a simple fact on which we all can agree - none of us are qualified to determine if global warming is man-made or not - NONE of us. Therefore, we are forced to use LOGIC rather than biased statistics and other useless information we cannot possible understand to determine the likeliness that we are the cause of this obviously very serious situation.
Here's my take:
Most all scientists with a vested interest in our government, or big oil all share one commom thread. They say that global warming is not man-made. There is no doubt about it - global warming is NOT man made.
Scientists with no such vested interest most all have a completely opposing opinion of global warming. They say that it is clearly a man-made situation, and therefore, we MAY have the power to fix/help it.
Again, I don't know the truth about global warming, but I can clearly see which side is backing which side of the argument. That, in itself, is pretty telling to me.
Please do not preach that you KNOW that global warming is man-made, or not. It's quite obvious that there are some scientists with the education to state one way or the other. However, you're not one of them. Instead, just try to follow the money. It's usually a pretty good path to start.
... Brad
First .... " ... no such vested interest ..." -- really?? Well, 'following the money' one could equally well argue that those who promote the 'man-made global warming' view have every bit as much a vested interest: peer reputation, career security/prospects, success in research grant applications, etc. etc. These kinds of 'vested interests' are every bit as real, and every bit -- ultimately -- as 'financial' as, say, those of a salaried scientist at Shell or Exxon. Put another way, a Greenpeace activist's motivations are just as likely (or not) to be financial. Al Gore is a different kind of example; now that most of us have forgotten that he invented the Internet, he needed a new 'brand' to get himself back into public view. Have to admit (vide: Academy Awards) he's been very successful -- all power to him!
My take:
1. As above, what we have right now is a mass (morass, perhaps better) of conflicting data AND conflicting opinion, some of which is genuinely held, some of which cynically. Seems to me that, in fact, at this point 'we' really just don't yet know whether human activity in/of itself has created a global warming effect.
2. Unarguable (I think): we've done a pretty good job of f----g up our environment in many areas, more or less severely, at least on a local/national level, BUT at least in North America/Western Europe, some regulatory and voluntary measures do seem to be having a salutary effect on this. That, unfortunately, is not the case in the hyper-industrializing nations, like mainland China and India.
3. Also unarguable, I think, is the fact that the 'end of the world' community has an on the whole not very impressive track record in its predictions (others have commented on this above). The fact that 'science' took over the leadership position in this community, superseding religion, has not improved this in the slightest.
Consequently, while I do think that specific measures to address specific environmental problems can and should be pursued at a national/local level, I also think that there is simply not nearly enough evidence, and perhaps none at all, to support the kinds of 'global' measures contemplated, for example, in the Kyoto Accord which (speaking of 'following the money'), for the most part, seems simply designed to dress up wealth-transfer (First to Third World) in yet another set of clothes, thereby supporting the creation and funding of yet another useless trans-national bureaucracy, and jobs for the boys/girls.
Here endeth my rant!
