Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by just21, Mar 12, 2007.
One of my best friends recently accused me of being "one of them" when I challenged the science behind human causation of global warming.
I wasn't saying it was wrong, just that we didn't know everything about climate and greenhouse gases. He's an otherwise smart guy, but unfortunately a "true believer" who cannot be reasoned with.
You may wish to get a bit more familiar with the skeptics of global warming and how their bread is buttered:
Interestingly, some of the same lobbyists and "scientists" who argued against a direct link between smoking and cancer are now taking up the cause against global warming. You can't help but admire their survival skills and how quickly they got back on the saddle again shortly after their smoking horse died. Not surprisingly, guess who the Administration is listening to?
Oil companies, Auto companies, etc...
I watched about 10 mins. It's well put together actually. Someone is going to have to do some research on this one to tell how much of it is just wordsmithing or careful editing of interviews. So far, it looks like no one has put up the anti-site but it's only a few days old from what I can tell.
Should probably consider the producer of the film and his past works, Martin Durkin
"In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast Durkin's Against Nature, a documentary series which criticized the environmental movement for being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development. Against Nature was subsequently investigated by the Independent Television Commission of the UK, following a number of complaints from some of the interviewees featured in the program.  The Commission eventually concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.According to The Independent, Durkin "accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as 'omplete tosh.'
I acutally remember seeing this and wasn't the assistant producer and the interviewees in the film part of a right wing libertarian group sued for fraud? There was something happening outside this film that drew attention.
And whatya know : "Professor Carl Wunsch (professor of physical oceanography at MIT), stated that he was 'completely misrepresented' by Durkin in his documentary. Currently considering making a formal complaint, Wunsch claims he was 'totally misled' as to the content of the program."
Here are a few scientists' (19,700) opinions to consider.
No doubt, all of these scientists' credentials have been properly vetted.
Well that obviously settles it...
I've never understood the skeptics -- except from a short sighted self interest point of view.
I mean what's the real downside of being more energy efficient? What are the risks if the skeptics are wrong? Don't they buy auto insurance? etc...
I'm guessing that's the extent of it. It pays to be a skeptic:
Watch the video and see them scurry in the light.
Separate names with a comma.