Lightwizard wrote:I fail to see the difference -- I don't recall specifically who has used their intelligent expertise to avoid discussing a problem. Who are these people? Names and incidences, please. I'm sure you can come up with some isolated examples, ...
Well since you've already conceded that I can probably offer examples, and since anything I cited here would be "isolated examples" BY DEFINITION, I'll pass on the exercise in futility. :wink:
No, seriously, have a look at this:
Quote:American Association of State Climatologists
State Climatologists Skeptical of Administrations Global Warming
Having just returned from the annual meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists (for which I will be President for the next year), I can tell you that there is a great deal of global warming skepticism among my colleagues. For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration's point of view. Far from being a "done deal," the global warming scenarios are looking shakier and shakier. I have encouraged the other state climatologists to speak up on this issue and intend to be a spokesman myself (see, for example, July 25 1998 Science News). It's interesting to me that the tactics of the "advocates" seems to be to 1) call the other side names ("pseudo-scientists") and 2) declare the debate over ("the vast majority of credible scientists believe...").
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm
(Isolated example follows...
Quote:This administration used a dubious scientific expertise to deny that global warming was a problem than within a year, reveresed itself, saying they agree but there's nothing they can do about it at the present time. Now that's an example of what you are describing and it does have something to do with foreign affairs as no matter how we try and deny it with more statistical manipulating, the rest of the world sees us as a major polluter. That we try to deny that and deny global warming is bad PR (all three of the above acronyms). We want to set an example and lead the world, why don't we act like it?
First, they shouldn't have flip-flopped, but that is nothing like what I described.
Second, many much smaller nations produce far more pollution on a per capita basis--the only meaningful measure--than does the US. Further, they emit pollutants we no longer allow.
Third, denying that global warming is a proven reality and that a causal link to the actions of man has been established may be "bad PR", but only among those who have accepted pop-eco-politics in lieu of actual science. Global warming is hotly disputed, not only between those who believe it is or is not happening, but among the convinced. At one symposium a few years ago, six of the world's top climate researchers got up and gave six different views of the problem and proposed six different solutions. Each one of the six was mutually exclusive of the others. If any one man was right in his conclusions, it meant that the other five must be wrong. Now, if those who believe it is fact are that far apart on what it is, how can anyone be so convinced that "it" is occurring?
(Sadly my link for this interesting article seems to be outdated, so take it with a grain of salt, or not at all, as is your wont.)
