or the IPCC, or NOAA, or the WMO. but hey:
emg said:
When I was in the 4th grade the "junk scientists" were scaring everyone with the threat of a new ice age......now it's global warming....."Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me...."
If they were wrong once, clearly they're wrong this time right? Don't attack science, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about if you do. Least of all you'll irritate the scientists, who generally just want to learn and pass on that learning for the betterment of the world.
There's no question that there's a natural cycle of climate cooling and warming (inferred by the stable oxygen isotope record from ice cores). Nor is there a question that there are natural and solar processes, mostly unexplained, that have caused these historically. The only real debate is whether a significant proportion of the current climate change is anthropogenically caused.
The best data currently available to climatologists suggest that a significant proportion is; what's to be done about it is another question. No one has suggested that we should trash the economy by stopping oil use entirely, but starting the ball rolling towards alternatives is doubtlessly a sound policy. Not just for the environment, but to decrease our dependancy on the Mid-East.
Ironically, as one of the cofounders of Greenpeace put it, environmentalists are one of the biggest obscacles to alternative fuels. This because they oppose everything except for solar, which is unfortunately, currently not a very efficient alternative. They even oppose wind powered generators because they're unsightly and kill birds.
I see what you're saying about the economic longitude of oil stocks Slip, thanks for clearing that up for me.
).
