Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak
How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip
By Michael Shermer In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did. My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic. More.. |
Quote:
this article was written 5 years ago |
Multi
How true.
The proof really is in the puddin' on this.. It's all about jobs for the over achieving academics without a sellable skill. |
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
Quote:
|
The theory of Global Warming has become a vested interest. Lots of people owe their jobs to the theory and will do what it takes to continue feeding at the trough of fear. Not unusual of course.
|
If and when a global cooling trend begins in the latter part of this century and the environmentalists all start taking credit for it, there'll be no living with them. There's nothing more annoying than a fool who thinks he's a hero.
|
Why?
Because you'll believe anything. And also it is much easier for governments to control populations if said popilations constantly have something to disagree over and be afraid of. |
There's no better proof that global warming is no longer a matter of science than what you just said, RDixon.
|
climate change will be only a part of the major earth changes that will happen before the end of this century ,we could be in for a shift in the earth's axis and a whole bunch more fun stuff
global warming is so 90's these days it's become sort of a stale debate imo too much energy being put into cutting emissions that might only help a little.. too little too late but preparing for world wide events that are becoming more and more of certainty every day could go a long way |
Quote:
|
Dire consequences for Canada...NOT!!!!
Several documentaries that pertained to global warming and climate change were broadcast across Canada during the final week of June 2006. Recent discoveries concerning the geological and climate history of Canada have indicated that Southern Canada may have been a subtropical rainforest during an earlier time period while the average annual temperature of the Arctic may have been above the freezing point of water. If the global warming theory is valid, it will merely reintroduce to Canada the kind of climate that actually existed in its distant past. A future generation of Canadians may actually be able to adapt to living in that kind of climate and utilize the advantages that it may have to offer. http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060702-2.htm |
Quote:
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/20...2007-01-11.cfm |
You're almost as bad claiming nobody knows something when they do as you are claiming you know something when you don't. When are you going to stop your pretentious proclamations and adopt a standard of ethics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory Quote:
|
Theory: Unproven. Could be true, but also may not be.
Everything you think you know is wrong. |
Quote:
|
Well I guess nobody knows why the weather changes then.
|
We call these systems chaotic because they cannot be predicted with certainty beyond a short time span and because they are acted upon by variables that we are not aware of. Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year. It's impossible to predict whether a storm forming off the cost of Africa will eventually destroy New Orleans, let alone what a whole hurricane season will be like. I think it's safe to say we really don't understand the weather. In all likelihood we will understand it eventually, but today the best we can do is hire glorified bookies to quote statistical probabilities.
|
Al Gore invented weather.
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_At...rricane_season Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't think we should knowingly do things that have strongly negative environmental impact. Similarly, I do not think junk science disinformation should be allowed to set public policies, especially when the result is to stifle development and injure the economy. For example, environmental concerns are the main reason the U.S. can’t produce enough domestic oil and this in turn results on dependance upon foreign oil. Dependance on foreign oil (from the middle east) helps fund the jihad terrorism against us. In 2005, fifteen hurricanes formed and a number of them made landfall, some causing horrendous damage. We listened to the global warming activists tell us in 2005 that more of the same was to come with severe hurricanes becoming more frequent and more powerful. The real world experience did not verify the "doom-and-gloom" preaching. The 2006 hurricane season yielded only six hurricanes, NONE of which made landfall in the U.S.. Another indicator global warming activists tout is diminishing volume of polar ice. Some of the information in this area is contradictory. There is apparently scientific evidence that the antarctic ice is actually growing, not diminishing. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp Or, how about The Weather Channel (TWC) "climate expert" Dr. Heidi Cullen, who wants the American Meteorological Society to de-certify any broadcast meteorologist who fails to beat the "catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity" drum. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528 Junk science is not real science. Scepticism and making a scientific theory stand up to it is a normal, healthy and necessary part of the scientific process. It is supposed to prevent junk science from being adopted as scientifically supported fact. The lack of tolerance for alternate viewpoints that is being expressed could probably be described as scientific evidence that they are not being scientific. As such, the theory itself comes under serious question as to its validity. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)