People like Mokele want you to believe that the science community and climatologists as a whole support the Global Warming theory. That is quite untrue.
Fine: show me a peer-reviewed paper that directly disputes global warming. Go one, find one.
You can't, because there aren't any. The "Scientists" in this film include a weatherman, a politician, and a magazine editor. The only actual scientists in it include two who merely dispute alarmism (one of whom only disagrees with the IPCC because he feels it's too political), and two of whom are known industry shills.
Too all those who respect expert opinions, watch this:
OMG, it's on YouTube, it must be true!
Never mind that the film has been explicitly addressed here by people who actually have integrity:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573
http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/2
Funny how, after the film argues there's no consensus in science, scientists all reach the consensus that this film is a load of hogwash.
Try again, and this time, use REAL sources. Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles ONLY.
Left wingers conveniently de-humanize life by calling a human embryo as something less upsetting as murder. They're just in denial of reality.
As opposed to the right, who want thousands of women to die from back-alley abortionists.
Then again, the right wing has bent over backwards to prove their misogynistic cred to the Nazis for Jesus, so it shouldn't surprise anyone.
As far as I read and understand, our planet has ebbed and flowed for thousands, if not trillions of years. People crossed the Bering Straits to get to North America. The 15th century was supposed to have been a warm one. The 30's-50's was a warm spell. The 60's and 70's were colder and the experts were calling for an oncoming iceage. They changed their mind in the 80's and 90's. In my opinion, we have normal ebb and flow interacting with human activity. Both are occurring. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Because the evidence has ruled out natural causes. That's why.
And, as I proved earlier, there was no "cooling" scare. Check your facts or don't bother posting.
Mokele, many environmental issues, not just the collateral damage of roads, were pioneered by outsiders who often were more emotional than informed and were criticized for not shutting up and listening to the scientists.
Name one such incidence. Cite sources.
Any scientist who wants to be listened to has to bend over backwards to play nice, even when the dissent is pure fiction pre-packaged for distribution by industry shills. It's impossible to convert the willfully ignorant, but ripping into them makes others sympathize with them.
Playing nice doesn't mean conceding anything, or being any less thorough in categorically destroying the opponents POV. It just means smiling while you do it.
My point is, and has always been, that experts are experts for a damned reason.
They used the wrong measurement method:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ord-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/#more-180
Nor funded by climatologists looking for more grant money.
You do realize that doom and gloom are not part of grant procedings, right? That nobody gets a dime for saying "I will prove we're all going to die"? That "the 'broader impacts' section a grant is usually maybe 5 sentences in a 40 page document?
Do you think I'm making up all my data on snake locomotion just because I got funding? Where, exactly, do you think money for science comes from?
You seriously have no idea how science works.
BTW unless you're a reputable climatologist, I believe you're included in the public realm and have no special insight in this matter.
And I am perfectly happy to let them have the final say in everything, which is why I bend over backwards to reference my points. I'm not an expert, but since there are none on this board, I'm acting as proxy, conveying their arguments for them.
The point is scientists should be willing to accept the possibility of being completely outright wrong. The way the Global Warming theory is being tossed around is that it is a universal fact and any skepticism towards Global Warming is just completely outright wrong. How scientific is that? I think people with these attitudes such as Mokele do nothing but discredit and hurt the scientific community. There's plenty of experts out there that think the Global Warming theory is a hoax, why don't their POV carry the same weight? Oh wait... because people like Mokele tell everyone some bogus conspiracy theory that these people are paid off by the oil companies? Be a sheep if you want to, but there's two sides to Global Warming in the science realm.
prove it.
Prove there's two sides.
Show me a scientific paper in which the authors dispute global warming.
Oh, wait, you won't, because you're happy living in ignorance, just as you are about evolution. Why anyone even listens to you is beyond me.
They should forgive us for whatever flaws are in our current understanding of things, but not for our time's epidemic of willful ignorance. I won't attack it because I've become convinced that attacking ignorance just makes it more attractive to people. It makes no sense, but it's the bizzaro world we live in.
Then what do you suggest we do, leave the morons to spread misinformation unopposed?
Mokele