Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 03:17, August 10, 2007
, 03:17, August 10, 2007→Ed Poor: all a bunch of hot air
[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).
The Anthropgenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
The scientifically accepted theory is that natural forces account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.
The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conseveratives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.
In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for Kyoto Protocol or are partisan supporters of Democratic Party candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.
There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US federal funding is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.
There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)