Politics
Out of context: Reply #6437
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- designbot0
Hey Dr.B In the above article I don't see any cited sources that actually lend credit to this article being legit. As far as I am concerned it can fall wayside as "conspiracy theory" unless this information like "the AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil" can actually be solidified somehow.
Having said that, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this was legit. When you say "Why does Exxon need to pay scientists if the evidence is out there that it isn't caused by burning fossil fuels?" You have a valid argument there if this indeed did happen...but remember there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Scientists are studying the available information and deriving conclusions from that information. Some think there is no question that the climate is indeed rising as a direct result of humans carbon emissions, while other scientists are saying that the earth is on a constant natural cycle of heating up and cooling down. In the grand scheme of things, over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. That fact alone to me is pretty astounding and makes me wonder if we humans are a bit arrogant in thinking we have such a major impact on the earth.
Please don't misinterpret my stance. I am completely for things like recycling, less pollution, and just generally taking care of the earth. I think the drive to be "green" can certainly (and already has) sparked some amazing innovations that we may have never seen otherwise. I am personally very interested in solar power (living in Colorado where the sun shines more than Cali) and may even pursue this as a career or business. I simply question the need to rush in and make radical changes and quick decisions when science seems conflicted on the evidence. Kwesij was saying above that there is mass propaganda to sway people into thinking global warming is a myth, but coming from the other side I personally see it the exact opposite. I think the propaganda is on the other side. Interesting how we see it the exact opposite. Guess it shows we all have some degree of bias.
- a) science is not conflicted
b) "positive feedback loops" are a bitchTheBlueOne - Please show me solid evidence to support "a".designbot
- Not going to waste my time. Been around this merry go round on the internet a zillion times.TheBlueOne
- If you're interested in hearing the other side, here's a good listen:
http://www.electricp…TheBlueOne - it happened.DrBombay
- http://www.treehugge…DrBombay
- http://www.portfolio…DrBombay
- thanks for posting this...I'll read it later (when I'm not at work that PDF is hella long :)designbot
- a) science is not conflicted