Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Host, I'm not saying that big oil has a vested interest of debunking global warming. That is like saying that the global warming community has no vested interest in overblowing the potential impact or their level of understanding of global temperature events.
If this data is accurate, regardless of who funds the research, then it gives ample justification for critisism of the Global Warming community. If you wish to stop big oil funding of the anti-Global Warming community, then you must also stop the Heinz Fund from funding Global Warming research.
Do you think that Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and the Democrats have less purpose in their research as Exxon-Mobile? If you are going to use these excuses to ignore the research, which I would not blame you if you did, then you have the duty to do it evenly on both sides.
BTW, did big oil invest the research by my prior post about Armagh Observatory? Their research has spanned over 200 years of daily temperature readings, which found the earth had in fact cooled. Did big oil have that long a history of funding research?
|
I think its disingenuous of those who like to "debunk" global warming to cherry pick research, like your Amagh reference, without at least acknowledging that scientists at the facility also stress the need for further research on global warming:
Quote:
Of the problems facing the human race today, none is more pressing in the medium term than change in the global climate. Global warming, if it continues at the current rate for a century or more, is expected to cause increasing desertification of some parts of the world simultaneously with rising sea levels. No country is immune from the effects of global warming, but those with extensive coastlines, such as Ireland and Britain, have particular cause for concern. Although it can be argued that climate has never been stable, we cannot plan for the industrial and social requirements of the future unless we understand the causes of climate change – i.e. are they natural or anthropogenic in origin, to what degree do the various factors contribute, and what will the consequences be?
...
The results suggest that much of the global warming that has occurred over the last century could in principal have derived from the known changes in solar activity levels and their predicted effects on low clouds. However, when we look at the actual observed cloud data from various parts of the world, including Ireland, since the beginning of the 20th century, we find that the picture is more complicated and that changes in cloud at all levels must be taken into account before we can reliably predict the full contribution of clouds to global warming.
Thus we see how mundane and often tedious meteorological observations, if gathered over a sufficient time, can give us important clues about the real causes of global warming.
http://www.irishscientist.ie/2001/co...=IS01pages.xsl
|
I think its also a bit farfetched to suggest or imply that "Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and the Democrats" are somehow responsible for such independent research as that conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and the UN Climate study group.
I agree with Boatin's conclusion: I'd rather err on that side (of further study) until we know more. The demagogery by either side serves no scientific or public policy interest.