The problem of the debate is not, as you seem to think, that those who believe that man influenced global warming or climate change is a crucial problem, are ignorant of the fact that there has been climate change previously in history, but that when comparing anthropogenic factors through glacier & moraine analysis, dendroclimatology, palynology, geology etc etc, there is a difference in how the effects are carried out now compared to before, most prominently in speed.
I for one rely on safer links than a scientist bought by oil companies. How about Nasa (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/), United Nations Intergovernmental panel (http://www.ipcc.ch/) or why not National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.noaa.gov/) whose director, Thomas Karl can be quoted in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html) saying: "the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone."
It's great that you've read some climate history, but for the sake of the debate, why don't you also assume that the people (and scientists) who take climate change seriously are aware of many more facts than you'd think.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/11/10 21:52 (UTC)I for one rely on safer links than a scientist bought by oil companies. How about Nasa (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/), United Nations Intergovernmental panel (http://www.ipcc.ch/) or why not National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.noaa.gov/) whose director, Thomas Karl can be quoted in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html) saying: "the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone."
It's great that you've read some climate history, but for the sake of the debate, why don't you also assume that the people (and scientists) who take climate change seriously are aware of many more facts than you'd think.