General Discussions > Skepticism / Science Talk
Hottest The Earth Has been In 2,000 years.
cyborganics:
There is no persuasive evidence to validate exactly what the effects or even what the underlying cause of global heating is; any source suggesting or citing 'evidence' beyond the question of if heating is happening is ignorantly and arrogantly assuming what's going on. It seems to me that the whole point of what's important about global heating is being missed all too often: WE NEED TO INVEST IN THE STUDY OF GLOBAL HEATING (scientists) and stop listening to the fear mongering political agendas (Greenpeace), profiteering media whores (CNN) and anecdotal peanut gallery (Public opinion).
http://www.skepchick.mu.nu/skepticsguide/viewtopic.php?t=80&sid=071a52d922cbf4cdd9986e0f9bd63673
gost:
News reports often present the most sensationalist or extreme points of view. I'd sure like to see some actual scientific literature to back those claims of mass extinctions. As far as I know, we simply don't have enough information yet to make those kinds of predictions. We can't even agree on which atmospheric models to use to try to predict the expected temperature changes over the next hundred years, let alone to start using those numbers to make predictions of potential extinction rates.
As far as the guilt angle, I sure don't feel any. I also don't see too many of my fellow Americans walking away from their gas guzzling vehicles, especially here around the Seattle area. We can't even seem to get a regional transit system in place to help relieve the congestion. Maybe we Americans could assuage our supposed guilt by actually taking a leadership role in addressing the problem. Better funding of the sciences might also be a good place to start.
cyborganics:
If I were the states, I would go Nuclear as the first and most cost effective option in reducing the volume of pollution. It's cost effective in the long term, safe, very good environmentally, and would actually justify electric cars as an effective alternative unlike the lie they are now. But that means a lot of education required first to dispell the Nuclear boogy-man myth.
gost:
I'm still pretty undecided about the nuclear issue. The potential has always seemed good, but I'll need some convincing as to safe and long term waste handling before I can buy into it completely. The environmental record over at Hanford isn't too stellar, IMHO.
Thakkus:
--- Quote from: "gost" ---I'm still pretty undecided about the nuclear issue. The potential has always seemed good, but I'll need some convincing as to safe and long term waste handling before I can buy into it completely. The environmental record over at Hanford isn't too stellar, IMHO.
--- End quote ---
I have relatives who work inside the big nuclear plant in Tennessee. Evidently, that area has one of the (or possibly the highest) ratio of PhD's in the nation, primarily because of the nuclear stuff.
Anyway, I would also bet they have a higher rate of cancer in the area. Just a hunch, but there might be data to back me up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version