On this morning’s Early Show, Al Gore responded to the debate in the more conservative elements of the press” about whether global warming really exists saying that “in some quarters there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona” and debates about whether global warming exists were “in that category.” Watch the interview.
Indeed he is correct. No debate exists among credible scientists as to whether global warming really exists. In fact, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 and was unable to find a single paper challenging the consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.
ThinkProgress reports that climate skeptics instead are forced to make arguments like this one by Holman W. Jenkins Jr., that appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal:
In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth.
In other words, we shouldn’t worry about the world we are leaving to our children or grandchildren: it won’t matter to us.
Such an argument can be used to justify any dysfunctional policy that will have an ill affect on people, including ignoring the realities of global warming. It is no surprise that this argument is coming from someone who supports the other dysfunctional policies of the Bush administration and Republican party.
Indeed he is correct. No debate exists among credible scientists as to whether global warming really exists.
Note the operative words "crdible scientists". If you don't believe in the religion of "Global warming is all man's fault", you're not credible.
In other words, we shouldn’t worry about the world we are leaving to our children or grandchildren: it won’t matter to us.
No, what that means is that we don't have as big as the grant grubbing eco-"scientists" want us to believe we do. In the grand scheme of things, man hasn't really been around that long and has had minimal, if any, impact. Frankly, I'm disappointed you make such an asinine assertion.
It is no surprise that this argument is coming from someone who supports the other dysfunctional policies of the Bush administration and Republican party.
I don't think Bush or any Republicans have ever asserted that there's no global warming only that there isn't sufficient evidence, beyond the hopes of kooks, that it's all our fault. Ask yourself this: Can we control weather (short-term)? No. How then can we control climate (long term)? The answer is that we can't, but there's no money or political gain in that. You can't punish the U.S. if you buy in to that.
The inconvenient truth to eco-nuts and/or terrorists is that there has always been global warming and cooling as there is right now. There was even global warming and cooling long before we got here. The problem for those who swear by the religion of "global warming is all our fault" is that most people are too smart for that. They're also too smart to sink billions of money into a joke like Kyoto which won't do a damn thing. Talk about "playing on our fears".
My question is why anybody would want to get up in the morning and wrap themselves up in doom and gloom?
Doom and gloom is much cooler than willful ignorance and denial...
Science operates on a concensus and the fact is that the concensus is that global warming is happening and that humans had some role in it. There's also a concensus among biologists that evolution is THE best explaination for the species....
And yet conservatives always rely on the fringe scientists, who represent a tiny fraction of the community, into order to push their agenda. Its clear that conservatives don't care what the facts are, they will ignore a mountain of evidence to make a mountain of a ant hill of fringe scientific hackery.
Indeed he is correct. No debate exists among credible scientists as to whether global warming really exists. In fact, Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 and was unable to find a single paper challenging the consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.
I came across your post after posting mine about An Inconvenient Truth. The scientist who published in Science magazine, Naomi Oreskes, later rescinded her statement. She was forced to do so because no other scientist could replicate her results. See http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm for more information. You can also replicate these results yourself if you don't believe Mr. Peiser.
If you would like to discuss this issue in detail, please see my post at http://www.progressiveu.org/084651-the-truth-about-global-warming and let me know what you think after reading my research.
Thanks for reading,
Kate