Quote:This is as much an issue of what studies are politically fundable as anything else. When there is a massive amount of money being given to people who will scientifically support "global warming", and little more than mockery to those who oppose it, you will only find literature supporting it. The case can be generalized to any situation of similar parameters - for example, if you were living in 15th-century Europe, would you have dared to publish an anti-Christianity screed? No, because you would have been (literally, instead of figuratively) burned at the stake.
Because there's every bit as much doubt in the relevent scientific community about global warming - in essence, not in specifics - as there is about evolution, that smoking causes cancer, and of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. That you can find "scientists" that have opposed all three of those means precisely about as much. The majority of scientific studies that you'll find about climate change at this point are not trying to prove it exists, but to study its already extant effects on flora, fauna, specific areas and climatological models, et al.
Quote:This is under considerable dispute. Many people believe that natural processes including common animal life and vulcanism produce FAR more greenhouse gases than human industry.
Because it's simple common sense that if when you have made a more than measurable dent in the forestation of the planet (which we have), and when you have released untold amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (which we have and do), it will have an effect on the planet's climate.
Quote:For the first time in your life, you say something political that I agree with you on.
It strikes me as similar to the notion that "It's impossible to catch all the fish in the sea", a belief that didn't turn out too well.
Quote:And here we disagree again. There are many people who stand to benefit financially and politically. Start with all those scientists who put out those pro-"global warming" platitudes you mentioned in the first paragraph, all the political candidates who run on the platform, and all the eco-fanatics who take it as a point of religious dogma that human civilization is the worst thing to happen to the Earth, and that it should be done away with immediately. Add in to that all the ones who just want an excuse for more government control of industry, the ones who want to weaken the West's economic and military strength, and the ones who simply jump on the bandwagon because it's got momentum and it's a way for them to exploit to their own political and financial benefit.
Because, quite frankly, there is no good reason to think there a pro-global-warming conspiracy, as very, very few people benefit financially from it (especially up until this point). But there's a hell of a lot of reasons for people to deny it exists and a hell of a lot of people with financial reasons to keep denying it exists.
I stand by my beliefs.
I also firmly believe that the only way the human race is going to CONTINUE to prosper is to continue to expand. Getting off this planet not only opens up our access to resources but also our scientific, cultural, and technological momentum. Right now, we have no frontiers to expand into, and it's crushing us under our own weight.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.