"Free Market Solutions" vs. what? Government Regulation and Taxation? would some guy working in his garage on a muffler that traps CO emission qualify as a free-market solution? How about private companies developing solar-cells, electric cars, etc, etc ... If so, sign me the hell up. people can be such f'ing tools ...
you sound like an old charles bronson movie. a little rude, playing the tough guy. yet ... charles was ... what is the word ... convincing? can't wait to read a further, maybe even more eloquent reply of yours. i guess no candidate would be proud of you voting for him ...
No scientific organizations ever endorsed global cooling. They didn't have to reject it because nobody within the scientific community ever claimed that it was a consensus view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling The whole global cooling thing is blown vastly out of proportion by ideologically motivated non-scientists seeking to discredit something they do not understand. Martin
The web site you posted has nothing to do with the petition. There's certainly no endorsement expressed or implied. The petition is actually hosted by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an ad hoc research group of 6 scientists, none of whom are specialized in any sort of geoscience. The OISM petition is loosely verified at best. They managed to dig up 17,000 people willing to claim that they have at least a bachelors degree in... well... anything. Other than that the only apparent qualification is being able to read, write, and afford a postage stamp. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm Compare that to the 450 lead authors and 2500+ scientific expert reviewers of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report on Climate Change, who are leaders in their fields and were willing to put their name and scientific reputations on the line with an unequivocal statement of scientific conclusions. So honestly, which do you think is a more credible representation of the scientific consensus on global warming? Martin
Who is highly disputing it? What are their motivations? Do they have vested interests? Pretty much. Your butter margarine example is something to take note of but one cannot simply ignore a perceived problem as it is worsening based on the excuse that not everybody is on board especially something with the catastrophic implications of global warming. Does one not use canola or olive oil because we are relying on science to determine that it is better than butter or margarine? Who is to say we won't find out differently later? There is seldom a case where one has complete information. One makes do with the best information at hand. The opinions of a majority of scientists in the field are actionable. We are not talking about a handful of quacks. Moreover their actionable suggestions are far from onerous in relation to the potential problem. There are small effective steps that can be taken now that have next to no obvious deleterious effects. Nothing drastic is being contemplated. If there is delay, however, that might change. Instead of talking in the equivalent of what oils to use we might be facing the choice between angioplasty and heart bypass.
As glaciers retreat, there are islands appearing off the coast of Greenland never known to exist since the area was first charted a hundred years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/s...tml?ex=1326603600&en=b018c85a1b03d90f&ei=5090