RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 19th 04, 05:34 PM

From: "Mark S. Holden"

Here's a link you might find interesting:

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Thanks for being intellectual enough to at least provide a single URL.
Actually, I know this URL very well, already. As a debate coach, it was my
responsibility to prepare arguments on both the negative and affirmative. This
URL is looked upon as one of the primary negative sources on the issue of
greenhouse warming.

Here are the indictments that usually convinced judges to dismiss it:

1. It ignores the strong consensus in the scientific community.

2. Many of it's counter-claims, particularly scientific, are undocumented. They
simply refuse to provide some important citations. Undoubtedly, this is to
deter scrupilous examination of the sources of their counter-facts.

3. It assumes mandated CO2 levels when making projections about economic costs,
largely ignoring effluent trading schemes. All their projections are worst-case
when it comes to regulatory schemes.

4. The page admits their own bias. If you check under the About this Site link,
you'll see that this organization was created years ago to dispel global
warming. They won't even admit, as Steve does, that climate has been warming.
They're still promulgating those old faulty CIA studies on cooling taking
place.

5. This is not a group of scientists running this webpage. They are right-wing
political activists. They use the common tactic of ignoring data that doesn't
fit within their paradigm. Their primary concern, as can be seen by their first
link, is discrediting Gore as extremist. They are POLITICAL, not SCIENTIFIC.

I am not saying that everything at this site is wrong. When you look at the
totality of evidence produced on both sides (a daunting task that I've been
attempting for years) there are legitimate scientific points to be made from
both sides. But there are means of policy action that won't destroy our
economy. No one is seriously saying we should stop all fossil fuels anytime
soon. But given the enormous implications for human survival tied to climate
chane, along with a host of other reasons (including independence from reliance
on MidEastern oil supplies!!) we should immediately start embracing fuel
efficiency incentives such as effluent trading schemes.

There is a good negative argument that any reforms are too late, that the
damage is so well along that we can't do much. But, I remain optimistic that
the sooner we stop sticking our heads in the sand, the more optimistic we can
all be about future human survival.

Thanks, Mark, for returning some modicum of intelligence to this discourse.

I hope you're having a great MLK Day!

Mike Bryant