I'm trying to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt where global warming stands scientifically, good or bad, ideally resulting in a case the most hardcore partisan couldn't ignore, and I don't want to leave any information on the table. So leave a comment here, or e-mail me at mwmailsea at yahoo dot com, if you have any counterarguments or new information in response to the arguments already presented (with an emphasis on today's strip, whatever strip that may be) that doesn't duplicate one of my existing sources, as listed below.
UPDATE 4/12/2009: I'm no longer specifically checking my e-mail for new global warming information; use this thread instead. See this post for details.
It's possible I may miss something that actually is in one of the sources, and one of the sources is so goldanged long there's no way I'd get through it all myself, so I'd also be up to being referred to any information already in the sources, and feel free to debate the other side's information and arguments as well instead of waiting for me.
Supporting the global warming theory:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
http://www.grist.org/tags/How+to+Talk+to+a+Climate+Skeptic/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Opposing the global warming theory:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/13/47/
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/green-myths-on-global-warming-%E2%80%94-debunked/
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
This last source is so long and thorough I don't really have time to go through it all, so you can duplicate links from there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I'll start with the following I received via NewsBusters PM from "PopularTech", the source of the last, lengthy, skeptical source:
----
It is without a doubt a fact that the public policy positions by scientific organizations are released by a majority of their board members not the thousands of scientists which make up their actual membership. No vote was ever taken by the thousands of members to reach those conclusions. Try to find one vote to support these organization's statements - they don't exist - fact. Thus using these statements as proof of consensus is pure propaganda.
The Bush administration in no way censored ANY scientific evidence for anything. At best Hansen's personal opinions were not allowed to be used to represent NASA's or the government's position on scientific matters. This has nothing to do with any release of his scientific work. It is clear that Hansen has never had any remote trouble airing his personal opinions in the New York Times or the over 1400 media interviews he has had over the years.
Media Double-Standard on Global Warming "Censorship" (NewsBusters)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ridenour/2008/06/03/media-double-standard-global-warming-censorship
Speculation Elimination: Did the Bush administration really censor science? (National Review Online)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzZhOThmYThlYmQ2YjUyZGU4OTUwMmJlNDUxNmM2ZjI=
Post a Comment