Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change"
Jack M. Hollander wrote:
Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>
==Hypocrisy==
Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to [[James Hansen]] when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.<ref>Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm] </ref>
==Environmentalism and climate change==
==Environmentalism and climate change==