Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Again that's not the point. I agree the media is a circus whether it's global warming or what color panties Lady Gaga wears, but it's irrelevant. There are always going to be opinions, but that's not what matters and you and I are not going to make the decisions anyway the friggin' politicians are and they should be listening to the Science. The results are clear, concise and beyond reproach just like with evolution, but you still see people claiming it is wrong.
The point is to not listen to the media, the blowhards or anyone with an ax to grind (or protect). Read the science from reputable sources, make up your own mind if you are really interested. Don't sit like 95% of the U.S.A. population and expect to be spoon-fed pablum. And when you make up your own mind then certainly you are more than welcome to share that with your political representatives but I'm hoping that they will be doing the same thing, listening to the scientists who know what they are doing and getting their information from reliable scientific sources, not from the media or the corporate interests.
 |
But I look at
all the evidence, not just the limited set that has been included by scientists who have not been, ahem, completely objective...
When you take as conclusive evidence, for example tree rings, from less than 5 trees, and
at the same time, ignore written historical records that point to a different set of data, the historical (and widespread) records being minimised as being "from a localised environment variance" while the few tree rings come from an even more minimized regional variance, yes, I have a problem with it. And that's not being political or debating. It's stating
why I have problems with "anthropomorphic global warming" as being currently defined. That's why I don't just stop at the scientist's conclusions, I look at the data. Leaving out what doesn't fit your theory is an old scientific trap, called "massaging the data". the more you look at the data, the more "massaged" it looks.
Where it gets "political", it the idea that we have to make drastic changes to our civilization - or else! The sort of changes that will lead to millions of deaths due to starvation over time. (How many people went hungry in the third world when we shifted corn from food to ethanol?) To channel Kenneth Mars in Young Frankenstein - "If ve're going to risk starving millions of peeple, ve need to
demmed sure of our facts." Und ve aren't, no matter what your
beliefs are.