Originally posted by Dowding
That's one opinion in the 'nay' camp. The balance of scientific is heading for the 'aye' door. I suppose it depends on your risk tolerance as to which how you form your opinion, but being an accountant and a trained scientist I think I'll be prudent and support reduction in reliance on fossil fuels.
Besides, it coincides quite nicely with my views on geo-politics.
As for the article, much of that editorial is unsubstanciated opinion. He quotes one source but provides no link to the primary data. His opinions on 'gagging' orders are interesting, but add nothing to the discussion.
Yeah, it's primarily a political bash wrapped around very little, if any, evidence. He says that the climate change is natural, but even natural, there is a root cause and he doesn't cite that.
He cites one University's studies. I'm sure if you search long enough, you'll find a study that says the excess CO2 is caused by too many critters alive at one time (there are more humans alive today than the summation of history).
And this line: "Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported."
Yeah, they receive the info they want to hear from cronies hired through the system establish by the current administration. So, Bush saw through the smokescreen? Perhaps he has someone who shares his view telling him what he wants to hear.
Never accept any one's word at face value. They all have an agenda.
