One thing conservatives must understand about radical environmentalists is this: they are not interested in balance. They are not interested in consensus, unless your views agree with thiers.
Radical environmentalists only want to fight. When I was working in Washington, DC, I worked for a trade association on the development side of the equation that was part of a pro-growth coalition.
One of the coalition members had an off-the-record meeting with the Sierra Club and the question as posed, "Can we come to some middle ground and agree on a course for the future." The Sierra Club replied to the effect: no, our members want to fight and that's how we raise money.
You can not negotiate with the far left environmentalists. You can not compromise with them. They are the most vicious, vindictive folks out there. They will bully and threaten decision-makers to bend to thier will.
Indeed, I remember one radical environmentalists saying 'we'll fight them in court until they tire of the fight and go away.'
They want to win at all cost, making progress the victim. Sadly, the business community doesn't understand how these radical enviros fight and retreat.
This brings me to my point today. From Al Gore in an article posted on the Tennessean.com.
"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.
"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.
"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."
Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
""Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" ("very likely" is defined as 90% certainty).
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Page 10 under the heading:
UNDERSTANDING AND ATTRIBUTING CLIMATE CHANGE
So, it's not Gore's "science" as you suggest in your title. If the media you listen to were actually "fair and balanced" you would know that.
What balanced media???? News stories or reports that even hint of the widespread skepticism within the scientific community regarding anthropogenic global warming, are about as common as snow in Miami. If Gore sincerely believes the media portrays the global warming skeptics side, I can only conclude he has started hallucinating.
The mainstream media consistently reports anthropogenic global warming as if it were fact. The truth (that the media does not report) is that many (if not most) serious scientists question most of the orthodox belief about global warming. These scientists mostly agree that there has been some warming, but they disagree about the amount of warming, and whether it is any warmer now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period (about a thousand years ago, when there were no cars or factories), and many other very warm periods even further back in time. These scientists are even more skeptical that any of the global warming is caused by humans, or that there is anything we can do that will stop such warming, or even that global warming would be harmful (it was very beneficial during the Medieval Warm Period).
As for the cause of any global warming that may be occurring, several recent peer-reviewed studies have identified solar variability as providing a much more significant impact on earth's climate than previously thought.
For information you will not get from the mainstream media, see the following links:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2007/February%2017.htm
(look under item#8 under the title "Momentum Shifting")
If the media were fair and balanced, you would know that the IPCC report is not credible. In 2005, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound." Why should any of us believe anything coming out of the IPCC over the conclusions of a growing number of serious scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming?
Because the IPCC Report of 2001 was supported by the National Academies of Science when Bush called into question and asked the NAS to present an assessment. Since then, any number of scientific organizations have given assent to the IPCC report, including NASA, NOAA, American Meteorological Association, etc.
Like the Creationsists, when there is no evidence to support you, make sure that you have a "controversy" to report.
You suggest I ignore the large, and increasing, number of serious scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming "Because the IPCC Report of 2001 was supported by the National Academies of Science . . . Since then, any number of scientific organizations have given assent to the IPCC report, including NASA, NOAA, American Meteorological Association, etc."
Of course, politics and intimidation could not have had anything to do with such "assent." [sarcasm]
Last October, two senators (Rockerfeller and Snowe) wrote an open letter to the CEO of Exxon Mobil telling him to stop speaking out against anthropogenic global warming and to stop funding studies by global warming skeptics. While worded as a "request," it was very clear that there would be consequences should Exxon fail to comply. Clearly, the First Amendment's free speech clause does not apply to those who would challenge environmentalist religious dogma.
Do you think the organizations you mentioned are unaware of this letter and other forms of intimidation towards any skeptic of anthropogenic global warming? Do you think they would dare voice any skepticism, particularly in the case of those organizations whose existence depends on congressional funding? I do not think so. You may have read that Galileo also "accepted" the Earth-centric view of the Catholic Church after being threatened with the Inquisition.
Besides, science is not determined by consensus. It is determined by peer-reviewed studies, such as those carried out in much larger numbers by scientists who are, or have since become, anthropogenic global warming skeptics. Unlike anthropogenic global warming, the theory that it is solar variability that is primarily responsible for climate change IS supported by several such peer-reviewed studies.
You wrote: "Like the Creationsists, when there is no evidence to support you, make sure that you have a "controversy" to report."
You have that completely backward. It is anthropogenic global warming that has become religious dogma, and its proponents that demand it be accepted on blind faith, without question, regardless of the lack of evidence to support it. I noticed that no one here has explained why more and more serious scientists dispute anthropogenic global warming (and many other aspects of the global warming hypothesis), even some scientists who were previously global warming alarmists and are now skeptics.
Just 30 years ago, the environmentalists' gloom and doom scenario was global COOLING. I wonder what it will be 30 years from now.
I suggest you not ignore thousands of serious scientists, who are warning us.
You expect me to believe that Exxon is intimidated by two senators. That's funny. BTW, the UKs Royal Society also sent Exxon a letter.
Intimidation. The only organization intimidating scientists is w's white house.
You claim there is a "...large, and increasing, number of serious scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming...." Provide links.
You mention the old myth about global cooling. You're just repeating old talking points that have been de-mythed many times. But you, and cynics like you, just keep repeating it over and over, regardless of the facts. But here is a link for you, not that I think you'll read it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
I am old enough to remember the global cooling scare. I did read your link, but I am not relying on what people are saying today about that scare, but rather on my own personal experience from the 1970s.
You ask for links about the increasing number of serious scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming. I already provided 2 links in my first comment (addressed to Chris) to this article. Did you bother checking them out?
I also meant to respond to your remark "You expect me to believe that Exxon is intimidated by two senators. That's funny."
Congress has the power to impose increased taxes and regulations on Exxon. In fact, it has been debating imposing a windfall profits tax on the company. So, if I were in the shoes of Exxon's CEO, I would be concerned that my failure to comply with the senators' edict might result in such increased taxes and regulations. However, on principle, I would refuse (as Exxon has) to be silenced.
Yes, Mr. Lemos is correct. Thirty years ago, global cooling was going to kill us all.
And what nobody - I mean nobody - and I'm shocked, schocked that Dems don't address it is: we're still emerging from the mini-ice from the 16th to the middle of the 19th centuries.
Throughout this period, glaciers grew at a fast rate and some societies disappeared.
Now the earth seems to be growing warmer, but the liberals want to blame humans (read: America) for this as part of a grow-government-and-raise-taxes campaign.
Consider Mount Pinatubo. It released about 17 million tons of SO2. The temperature in the region decreased about 1 degree and about .5 degrees around the world.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about being responsible stewards of the environment. Like Al Gore, I use almost exclusively compact fluorescent light bulbs, though unlike Al Gore my utility bill isn't $1,200 per month, only about $120 to $175 (thank you government owned utilities). I drive a small Saturn SUV with high gas mileage.
I enjoy camping in wooded areas and fishing in pristine areas and believe development in some areas are inappropriate.
But I will not sacrifice my quality of life on unsound science that uses force and intimidation to silence dissenters, when proponents openly admit that computer projections are unreliable, and when it appears the true agenda is to financially punish Americans and the United States for simply being successful (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F4071EFD3E5B0C728CDDAB0894DF404482).
About the mythical global cooling scare. I'm also old enough to remember.
Whether Exxon is intimidated or not (actually, Exxon is beginning to sing a different tune on global warming since Lee Raymond took his $44Million golden parachute and left the building), I hope there is a carbon tax and regulation of fossil fuels. Even the CEO of Shell is calling for it. I hope congress has the guts to enact these measures.
But since you're a fossil fuel fan, I'll give you another reason for getting the hell off of fossil fuels - national security. Alot of your fellow neocons are pushing hybrids because they don't like the idea of funding the terrorists. I wonder where Inhofe stands on that.
So buy green energy.
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm
http://www.sterlingplanet.com/
Oh, that's right. You said, "I will not sacrifice my quality of life...."
Well, now that's the American mantra, isn't it. "I will not sacrifice." My younger brother is a moderate Republican. He voted for w. twice. He loathes that "I will not sacrifice" mantra he hears from his fellow Republicans.
Chris: "...it appears the true agenda is to financially punish Americans and the United States for simply being successful...."
Actually, I would like the U.S. to lead the way in developing and deploying existing renewable energy technology. The problem is that other countries, especially Germany, is filling the void that the U.S. has abandoned. Soon, we may be importing renewable technology instead of exporting it. But you must like being a debtor nation.
So you believe that everyone who disagrees with anthropogenic global warming must be a neocon? I bet that would surprise Claude Allegre, one of the scientists mentioned on both links I provided, who is a French socialist. Incidentally, according to Allegre, it is the proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming that are being motivated by money.
Within the material at the links I provided, there are numerous links to articles providing independent verification of the information. However, I did not expect you to look at any of the material with an open or active mind. I expected you to dismiss anything that conflicts with the anthropogenic global warming religious dogma and you did not disappoint me.
Your comment to Chris about sacrifice was very telling. That is what it is all about: sacrifice. Not sacrifice for any legitimate purpose, just sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Well, if the measures proposed by the global warming proponents are enacted, the sacrifice that you seek will come disproportionately from the poor in developed countries and (if not exempted) from developing countries that already suffer from energy poverty.
I have looked at this crap for years. I've seen it exposed for years. It's not worth my time anymore.
"I expected you to dismiss anything that conflicts with the anthropogenic global warming religious dogma and you did not disappoint me."
Certainly happy to oblige. It's kind of like dismissing the IPCC Report, and positions of at least a dozen other major scientific organizations on this issue. Oh, but that's different, I'm sure.
"That is what it is all about: sacrifice. Not sacrifice for any legitimate purpose, just sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice."
You read my comment the way you read science. You misconstrue it, and the way you misconstrue it is (I admit) clever. "...for no legitimate purpose" is your belief (not supported by scientific evidence) - and that's all it is, your belief.
"Well, if the measures proposed by the global warming proponents are enacted, the sacrifice that you seek will come disproportionately from the poor in developed countries and (if not exempted) from developing countries that already suffer from energy poverty."
Your defense of the poor is laudable. But I am not convinced your scenario is any more accurate than your belief that global warming is not real.
God's green soldiers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179145/site/newsweek/
You keep confusing your belief with fact.
We're the world leaders. We've been smart enough (for the most part) to not tax ourselves to death and implement anti-job and anti-business regulation a la France, the very one calling for a "carbon tax".
It's mostly a feel-good move by liberals who feel guilty about being well off. But if you ask them to give up something they won't do it.
I don't feel guilty and, no, I make no apologies on my quality of life nor do I want to give up the luxuries I enjoy.
Of course, I'm not the one living in an 18 room mansion, jetting across the country spewing pollutants from a jet while promoting a science fiction movie, and having an entourage of gas guzzling vehicles.
I'm sure it appears so to those with myopic, small minds. Do you not realize what potential economic benefits there are in renewables. Are are you content to let the Germans, the Japanese, and probably the Chinese reap all the benefits. Then we can import the technologies (like we import most of our cars now) and become more of a debtor nation.
"I don't feel guilty and, no, I make no apologies on my quality of life nor do I want to give up the luxuries I enjoy."
'Nuff said.
You wrote: "Your defense of the poor is laudable."
Just a little patronizing, don't you think? My concern is with individual rights (of all individuals, regardless of financial status or any other attribute). Individual rights are under attack from all sides: from the right and the left, from the various religionists (Christian and Islamic), from environmentalists, from neocons, etc. The one thing all of these groups have in common is their eagerness to sacrifice individual rights in service of whatever cause they deem more important than those rights.
What I find especially interesting is that most (though not all) environmentalists come from the left, which traditionally claimed to care about the poor and the developing world, yet environmentalism is so anti-poor and anti-developing world. It confirms my suspicion that their concern for the poor is as hollow as the pseudo-science behind anthropogenic global warming.
The detrimental effect of more expensive energy on the poor and developing nations should be obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out. Like it or not, people throughout the world depend on oil-based energy sources. There are no alternative fuels or methods of producing energy, other than nuclear energy, that are remotely as cost effective as oil-based energy sources. It stands to reason that if you make energy scarcer and more expensive, this will impose a financial burden on each country's economy, and on every human being. Even in wealthy countries like the US, the additional cost of energy will impose considerable hardship on low-income households. In those poorer parts of the world which already suffer considerable energy poverty, this energy poverty will increase and will take its toll in millions of lives. This is just common sense.
I am not sure why you would think I would be remotely interested in what "green" evangelicals have to say about global warming. I am an atheist. I value reason and science, and reject faith (whether of the traditional religious or quasi-religious variety).
You wrote: "Do you not realize what potential economic benefits there are in renewables?"
If that is true, then private companies will develop such technologies. The reason you want to use force and taxes, is that such technologies are NOT currently cost-effective.
By the way, Chris is right in his definition of sacrifice. It is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser value. The opposite, ie the giving up of a lesser value for a greater one, is properly called an investment, not a sacrifice.
Actually not. It was sincere, if you are, in fact, concerned for the poor.
"Individual rights are under attack from all sides...."
Now I might actually agree with you on this, but environmental responsibility is not an individual rights issue, unless you claim to have a right to pollute - like some smokers claim to have a right to smoke anywhere they like.
"...yet environmentalism is so anti-poor and anti-developing world. It confirms my suspicion that their concern for the poor is as hollow as the pseudo-science behind anthropogenic global warming."
You think global warming won't hit the poor the hardest?
"There are no alternative fuels or methods of producing energy, other than nuclear energy, that are remotely as cost effective as oil-based energy sources."
Nuclear has a waste problem that renewables do not have. Renewables have investors and will out compete fossil fuels. Nuclear has no investors and cannot survive without government subsidies. Renewables also create jobs, which because of your kind of intransigence, will likely go to Germans, Japanese and Chinese. Wake up! You're about to abandon a major arena of economic development. Your information on renewables is sorely lacking, as is your information on global warming.
"I am an atheist. I value reason and science, and reject faith (whether of the traditional religious or quasi-religious variety)."
So? You don't value science. You accept views of a handful of so-called "skeptics." Atheism is fine with me, but you probably fail to see that it is a "faith," just like any of the others. It is also just as guilty of massive human atrocities as any of the major religions. Green Evangelicals, who I consider "johnnie-come-lately's", at least share your concern for the poor.
"If that is true, then private companies will develop such technologies. The reason you want to use force and taxes, is that such technologies are NOT currently cost-effective."
Wrong again. Fossil fuels industries have all the advantages. They have benefitted from tax breaks and subsidies for decades. Renewables currently are not playing on a level field. I'd like to level the field, at least to the point where they are able to be mass produced. At that point, they will out-distance fossil fuels. You probably would like to keep fighting mideast wars in order to "protect our vital national interests in the region." But I doubt you would see the $Billions we are currently spending in the mideast as an oil subsidy.
"Chris is right in his definition of sacrifice. It is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser value. The opposite, ie the giving up of a lesser value for a greater one, is properly called an investment, not a sacrifice."
You must practice being wrong. Sacrifice is giving up a value now for a potentially greater value. You can call it an investment if you like, but the difference is that with an investment, you expect the return yourself. With sacrifice, whether you personally benefit is not the issue. You do it for the greater good. You probably will call that socialism or communism, but then you'd be wrong again.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4569577556800822039&q=Amory+Lovins
I fail to understand how, if there is a consensus, there could be another side to choose? Doesn't a consensus mean that we all agree that there is nothing more to discuss about the issue?
Your entire comment is premised on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (it does not deserve the label "theory") being true. Neither you nor anyone else has come even close to proving this ridiculous hypothesis.
The scientists, who disagree with the hypothesis, are more than just a "handful" - in fact, just the two links I provided (on their own) contain more than a "handful." I have been coming across scientists, who disagree with the hypothesis, for years, and had I kept a record, the number of scientists would number in the thousands. These scientists are from all over the world, not just from the US.
As I commented in my first comment to this article, this large (and ever growing) number of serious scientists dispute most aspects of the orthodox belief about global warming. These scientists mostly agree that there has been some warming, but they disagree about the amount of warming, and whether it is any warmer now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period (when there were no cars or factories), and many other very warm periods even further back in time. These scientists are even more skeptical that any of the global warming is caused by humans, or that there is anything we can do that will stop such warming, or even that global warming would be harmful (it was very beneficial during the Medieval Warm Period).
If global warming is beneficial, as it was during the Medieval Warm Period (which many scientists and historians believe was even warmer than the current period), why would we even want to do anything to stop it (even if we could)? If there is no evidence that the global warming will continue or that it will be significant if it does continue or that it is caused by human activity or that there is anything humans can do to affect the climate, then again there is no reason to do anything.
As for the cause of any global warming that may be occurring, several recent peer-reviewed studies have identified solar variability as providing a much more significant impact on earth's climate than previously thought. Besides the fact that such studies have survived peer review, their conclusions make sense and explain the climate variability that has occurred throughout history at times when there were no fossil fuel emissions.
You wrote: "Atheism is fine with me, but you probably fail to see that it is a "faith," just like any of the others. It is also just as guilty of massive human atrocities as any of the major religions."
Atheism means disbelief in the existence of God. I am an atheist, because there is no evidence of the existence of a deity. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, so to call atheism a "faith" is to misunderstand the meaning of the word "faith." As for the atrocities to which you refer, these cannot be attributed to atheism. That someone is an atheist tells you what the person does not believe, not what the person DOES believe or if the person is rational. The problem with communists was not that they did not believe in God, but that they did believe in an irrational philosophy which required the sacrifice of the individual to the state (which served as a substitute deity).
You wrote: "Fossil fuels industries have all the advantages. They have benefitted from tax breaks and subsidies for decades."
Fine. I support getting rid of all corporate subsidies and all disparate treatment that favors one company or industry over another.
You wrote: "Sacrifice is giving up a value now for a potentially greater value. You can call it an investment if you like, but the difference is that with an investment, you expect the return yourself. With sacrifice, whether you personally benefit is not the issue. You do it for the greater good."
"A potentially greater value" to whom? "The greater good" by what standard? Let me clarify exactly what I mean by sacrifice: It is giving up something that has a greater personal value to you for something that has less, or no, personal value to you. Defined as such, I vehemently oppose sacrifice. Moreover, there is no "greater good" that justifies violating individual rights.
I also meant to address your remark that "environmental responsibility is not an individual rights issue, unless you claim to have a right to pollute."
Everything involving government action is an individual rights issue. The only thing that legitimizes government regulation of pollution is that the pollution is causing actual harm to other individuals and/or their property. For example, if a corporation is dumping harmful chemicals into the river, those chemicals will end up on the property or in the water of other individuals. Since this is a violation of the rights of those individuals, the government is entitled to take action against the polluter. However, there must be a showing of actual harm and that the pollution was the cause of the harm, and the government's action must be a reasonable response to the actual harm (eg it is not reasonable to sacrifice economic progress to achieve a pristine environment). Global warming alarmists have proved neither causation nor actual harm, and their "cure" for a non-existent disease would cripple the patient.
I agree, this is the fundamental point of our disagreement, with one exception: warming is not catastrophic yet. That is still preventable.
I won't belabor the atheism point. I don't waste my time with theological speculation, one way or the other. Of course, religious advocates also argue that religion doesn't kill people. People do.
Genie: "I support getting rid of all corporate subsidies and all disparate treatment that favors one company or industry over another."
Sure, after the fossils have had preferential treatment for decades. No thanks. I think renewables should be given support, at least until they reach capacity to mass produce. Unless, of course, you would favor fossils reimbursing taxpayers for the decades of tax breaks and subsidies. Then I'll go along with your position.
"The only thing that legitimizes government regulation of pollution is that the pollution is causing actual harm to other individuals and/or their property."
That case is now before the supreme court. We'll see what the outcome is. But if science says there is actual harm, then you dismiss science. The same scenario took place in the tobacco wars - do you remember? Industry backed science said for years that whether tobacco caused cancer was inconclusive. And they denied even into the 1990s that it was addictive (when tobacco scientists were actually working to make them more so). Eventually, it became clear that tobacco does cause cancer and is addictive. The tobacco companies lost.
Genie: "...it is not reasonable to sacrifice economic progress to achieve a pristine environment."
This is among the most cynical things you have said. Money trumps biology? How absurd!
You know, when State Farm took the position they took re: residents along the MS gulf coast - basically, we'll give you pennies on the dollar to "settle" your claim, or you can take us to court, they lost. The tobacco companies lost. You're taking the same position as these idiots – and you'll lose too.
You wrote: "if science says there is actual harm, then you dismiss science."
Science does not support anthropogenic global warming, nor that the naturally-caused global warming will be harmful, rather than beneficial, nor does it support any predictions as to whether the warming will continue and to what extent, nor that there is anything humans can do to change the climate. We keep going around and around on this. Moreover, the alarmists' predictions of catastrophe are science fiction (and implausible fiction at that). You are the one who demands that we all accept anthropogenic global warming on blind faith, regardless of the lack of evidence to support it, and despite the evidence that contradicts it. What you advocate is not science, but faith (and sacrifice).
Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand the difference between science and faith. The following link contains a flow chart that explains the difference pretty well:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html
The flow chart on the right clearly is intended to describe traditional religious faith, but it is also very descriptive of environmentalist faith.
IPCC Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 10.
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" ("very likely" is defined as 90% certainty).
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Some of the consequences are discussed on page 16, but a further, more detailed account of the consequences of global warming are forthcoming later this year.
Just because you say the IPCC Report is not science doesn't mean it's not. I will go with the IPCC and the numerous other scientific organizations that have taken positions similar to the IPCC.
Again, this is the exact point of our disagreement. I say you confuse your opinion with fact. You state your opinion as if it were fact.
I don't need a lecture from you on the difference between science and faith. What you call "environmentalist faith" is your own spin on something you disagree with - stating your opinion as fact.
I have no need to prolong this arguement, since I doubt either of us will convince the other. I have argued with people who take your position many times before to no avail. It is a waste of time.
I am attempting to turn my attention to how this will play out politically, and how to further the technologies that have some potential to help the situation. Sometimes, I slip back into debating whether global warming is real. I will be more disciplined in the future.
Your comments about atheism are intriguing, and at some point I may like to discuss that with you further. I may write an article, stating my views of the matter, and I would welcome your comments.
I will give you the last word before signing off this thread.
There's far from a consensus, but Gore wisely advised his lefties to make pronouncements as if there is a consensus and he would take care of the political side of silencing anyone who dared challenge that position.
I'm all for using technology to reduce pollutants and believe in letting the free market bear out such improvements.
I also meant to address your remark that this situation in some ways resembles "the tobacco wars," where "[i]ndustry backed science said for years that whether tobacco caused cancer was inconclusive. . . denied even into the 1990s that it was addictive. . . ."
My grandfather, who was a heavy smoker and died from a heart attack, was told from the time he was a young man (ie before WWII), by all his doctors (bar none) that he had a high risk of heart disease, lung cancer, and other respiratory diseases, because of his smoking. The science was not at all "inconclusive" for independent medical researchers and doctors. All the medical data (for decades) has shown that the occurrences of lung cancer is much higher in smokers, than non-smokers. As for whether people knew nicotine is addictive, anyone who was a smoker, or had a friend or family member who smoked, knew that it is from their own personal observation.
In the case of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, it is mostly the independent scientists who disagree with the hypothesis. Moreover, unlike the situation with smoking, warm periods (as warm as the current period) have occurred throughout history, at times when there were no fossil-fuel emissions. If lung cancer occurred with the same frequency amongst smokers and non-smokers (who were not exposed to secondhand smoke), then it would be very hard to establish that smoking caused lung cancer.
Moreover, I am not aware of any studies to research the effects of smoking that required its researchers to come to the research with pre-conceived ideas as to what should be the result of the study (as is the case with the global warming hypothesis). If you know anything about the scientific method, you should know that this is precisely the WRONG approach. When serious scientists do research, they allow the evidence to lead them to the correct conclusion, and they consider all the evidence, especially any evidence that contradicts their initial hypothesis. It is not science, when you do what the anthropogenic global warming proponents have done: Start with the politically (or faith-based) mandated conclusion, and then manipulate the data to support that conclusion (while omitting any data that contradicts it).
I must have posted my last comment just a few seconds after you and Chris posted your last comments, so I did not read them until after I posted my comment. After reading your last comment, I will repeat that my problem with the IPCC report is that it is the result of the process I described in my last comment ie starting with the politically (or faith-based) mandated conclusion, and then manipulating the data to support that conclusion (while omitting any data that contradicts it). Dr Chris Landsea is just one of many scientists to have condemned the IPCC for being "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and being "scientifically unsound."
I would be interested in discussing atheism and/or religion with you, but obviously it is somewhat off topic for this thread. If you do decide to write an article about this issue, I would appreciate it if you would let me know, as I would like to join the discussion.
Chris. "I'm all for using technology to reduce pollutants and believe in letting the free market bear out such improvements."
You might have an interest in this article.
A Buyout Deal That Has Many Shades of Green
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/business/26coal.html?ex=1173157200&en=72c4e68ffcda5a06&ei=5070.
Nowhere does he say the media is bad, he says it has chosen to do what it did in the smoking controversy for example, and that is, to promote the idea that there is controversy because there are some number of scientists who kept saying that the idea that smoking causes cancer has not been proven.
Global warming is essentially like this.
Personally I think the whole world is missing the boat ... I should not have to die or to prove that destroying the environment is bad and immoral, it should be as obvious as the golden rule, and the basics of life.
Going off the wild goose chase of global warming when by all measures every metric of biology is declining on this planet is a waste of everyone's time.