The Global Warming "Problem"
Al Gore is being lionized for his film "An Inconvenient Truth" -- designed to frighten America into an environmental frenzy and create political consensus for sweeping legislation. Dear friends of a liberal persuasion have urged me to see the film, and I fully intend to.
But even if the film is as dazzling and frightening as some of its proponents claim, ultimately, I'm going to remain unconvinced. Why? Because I simply don't trust the source.
Maybe a more open debate between the global warming apostates and the self-proclaimed greens would alleviate some of the doubts. The problem is that the global warming crowd -- and the press -- treats global warming as a received truth, rather than as a theory that, like all other theories, should be debated.
But even if the film is as dazzling and frightening as some of its proponents claim, ultimately, I'm going to remain unconvinced. Why? Because I simply don't trust the source.
Maybe a more open debate between the global warming apostates and the self-proclaimed greens would alleviate some of the doubts. The problem is that the global warming crowd -- and the press -- treats global warming as a received truth, rather than as a theory that, like all other theories, should be debated.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:49 AM
6 Comments:
It's a case of "Follow the Money". The scientists that analyze the data, and see anything contrary to algore, don't get new funding.
Follow the money indeed. Follow the money keeping afloat the tiny island of "scientists" who adamantly dispute global warming...to Exxon.
Funny that THEY'RE the ones who are deemed credible by all of you while the global community of scientists -- whose funding comes from a myriad of sources who could not possibly ALL be aligned with this Al Gore conspiracy -- are the ones whose findings are suspicious.
Coyote,
Your point about the "snowball effect" is well-taken, but would we not do well to at least take these concerns more seriously than Carol and others do? After all, to quote one of our fellow readers here, "a point being raised by a partisan does not invalidate the point." But that is what is happening.
Wait a minute. Are you saying the Al Gore, one of the greatet scientific minds of our generation can be motivated by anything other than his love for mankind. Don't forget Al Gore DID invent the Internet!
(Yes I'm being sarcastic)
Lets get rid of the Co2 - Oh wait -- Most Co2 is produced by animals exhaling. We live on a vibrant, evolving planet. It changes regularly - If we are facing a crisis on any sort - lets try and get away from the ever present -- "It's Bush's fault"
Amber, do you really believe that if there IS something legitimate about this global warming idea that God will handle it? Or that whatever the case may be, it is His will and therefore we shouldn't worry about it?
Do you wear your seatbelt? Do you have your children immunized? Heck, why worry about farmers planting right up to the lake's edge? The fishkill would simply be part of God's plan, right?
'He helps those who help themselves,' is one of my favorites from the Bible, and, ironically, is the one that is most often used by the right whenever the subject of welfare comes up.
This premillennial dispensationalism is but one of the more frightening of the many reasons our national policy should not be guided by religious ideology.
Duke-Stir,
"..After all, to quote one of our fellow readers here, "a point being raised by a partisan does not invalidate the point. ..."
Hey, that was me!
Thanks for remembering.
Post a Comment
<< Home