General agreement or disagreement with this proposition?

[Archaea]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1811&ito=1490

[MikeWaters]

I think he's an idiot for wading into that.

[Indy Coug]

Agreement with his statement, disagreement that a religious leader should be getting involved in this arena.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Agreement with his statement, disagreement that a religious leader should be getting involved in this arena.

His statement implies that the non-scientific idealogical response is only from one side of the debate. That is nonsense.

... the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

Oh brother. Sounds like the Pope is a Rush Limbaugh fan.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

His statement implies that the non-scientific idealogical response is only from one side of the debate. That is nonsense.

Oh brother. Sounds like the Pope is a Rush Limbaugh fan.

Via Brit Hume yesterday:

Unconventional Wisdom

Climate scientists from three American universities have published peer-reviewed research indicating global warming cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases — and that current greenhouse computer models saying otherwise are wrong. The report in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society was written by professors from the universities of Rochester, Alabama and Virginia.

Lead author David Douglass of Rochester writes — "The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

The report says satellite data indicates greenhouse computer models ignore the mitigating effects of clouds and water vapor on the warming properties of carbon dioxide. It says climate change is most likely caused by variations in solar winds and associated magnetic fields.

A senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress tells Cybercast News the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316499,00.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Via Brit Hume yesterday:



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316499,00.html

What's your point?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What's your point?

Just pointing out some recent scientific, non-ideological data from the other side of the debate.

BTW, I agree the pope should stay out of it, but he's right.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Just pointing out some recent scientific, non-ideological data from the other side of the debate.

I never said that either side was devoid of scientific, non-ideological thought. I said it was ludicrous to imply what either side is devoid of non-scientific, idealogical thought. Big difference.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I never said that either side was devoid of scientific, non-ideological thought. I said it was ludicrous to imply what either side is devoid of non-scientific, idealogical thought. Big difference.

I didn't say you did. I was just adding some fresh science from the "anti" side to the discussion.

Don't get so defensive.

PS. That last line is pretty interesting, isn't it? Amusing how fast the ideological "pro" side is so quick to try and shut down debate.

[Archaea]

You can tell what article's author thinks by this piece of editorializing:

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.


Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

Gee, climates and their changes are evil, and scientists who do not join the overwhelming wave of opinion are intransigent.

The Pope should probably leave it alone, but the shoddy journalism should not be tolerated either.