Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Neither is your link a 'credible scientific journal'. Uh, Fox News? For that matter, ALL news is biased...which would make ALL news non-credible sources.
To reiterate what was said earlier, you pick and choose and edit what you want to convey-everyone does. But to say that your argument is backed by a more 'credible' source, when, in fact it is more biased than something from a 'news source' is just hypocracy and weak.
For what it's worth, I'm 'green' in thought and in deed; it is something I feel pretty strongly about.
But that fact remains that the scientific community is not unanimous in its conclusions about the definitive whats and whys of changing climate, except to say some part may be manmade, some is not.
|
If by "my link" you are referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists report on Exxon-Mobil funding, you are correct in that the press release is not a scientific journal. I mentioned Fox News because of the
link you posted that was a story from JunkScience.com, a bogus group by any scientific standards. The "reporter", is from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of those groups funded by ExxonMobil.
If you were interested in reading the report that is linked in the press release, you would have seen that the UCS scientists followed proper research protocol and annotated their report with 273 footnotes to source material. You can question their funding if you want, but they dont make unsubstantiated claims in their reports.
You see, that is the difference between proper scientific research and the work of many of the skeptics who seem to conveniently forget footnotes or any documentation of their source matieral, which IMO, makes UCS more credible that ExxonMobil or any of the foundations who publish reports with their money.
I still wonder why it so hard to provide a published report, with source information" from a skeptic scientists, rather than just their talking points.
BTW, I dont think any one in the scientific community or the political/public policy community have said that there is unanimity in the causes or contributions to global warming....but ithere is consensus among climatologists (and national academies of sciences) that it is highly likely (not 100% certainty) that human activities contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming. Ustwo's links to skeptics, the seven skeptics (that you posted earlier) or a handful of others funded by energy interests groups represent a very small slice of the climatology community. That is why the overwhelming majority is considered a consensus.
If you dont agree with, or question the conclusions of the consensus, thats fine. But it is incorrect to say there is no consensus based on a few skeptics.
And its great that you are green! I try to be as well.
