Take a look at this link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id= A growing list of scientists, many of whom previously believed in AGW, are withdrawing their support of AGW. Some food for thought.
No it is not food for thought. It is from the minority side blog of the Senate committee on eviron. and public works. I would not consider items from either side from this website, especially the blogs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 08:15 AM) [snapback]444068[/snapback]</div> The food for thought is that you are looking at the minority blog. The article, written in the style of a religious, or Amway dealer testimonial is not a published paper. I've said it before. Only peer-reviewed references when discussing scientific issues please .
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ May 17 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]444078[/snapback]</div> are you denying that scientists that once backed AGW are now changing their mind?
I am sure there is a small percentage of scientists that change their mind either way. It appears to be less than 5% of people than can give expert opinion. I don't think 5% of scientists deserve 50% of my time.
ONCE AGAIN. Why are we debating this? It does not matter if GW is overhyped or not. It's not the only reason we have to reduce/eliminate oil use. Why do you guy keep getting baited by Berman's trollish posts? And Berman, why do you care to stir this crap up, yet you'll never comment on the other concerns we have about oil use, and how the solution to BOTH problems are the same?
dbermanmd, since you are keeping score check for these scientists names: Corinne Le Quere Chris Rapley They did a study you would not agree with. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17...reut/index.html If their names are not on your scoreboard then please add them. If they are on the scoreboard, disregard. Also, disregard the study's conclusion, they thought the Antartic Ocean carbon sink would not be full until 2050 but data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 08:15 AM) [snapback]444068[/snapback]</div> All they had to do was step out of the line of sheeple and do some research on their own. There are huge environmental problems for sure but the same vehicle that launched AGW into the public eye will end up sinking it: Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth". The movie is a documentary? Yes and I guess Joseph Goebbels made documentaries too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ May 17 2007, 04:25 PM) [snapback]444435[/snapback]</div> Does this count under Godwin's law?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ May 17 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]444452[/snapback]</div> Let's see, a "documentary" being made to influence a nation with the stated goal of making major changes in society and a nation giving up its autonomy to the UN(carbon tax) through the use of fear-laden images? I don't know, I guess only history will be able to tell us.
