"No, I don't and that is why they are not considered credible."
Then why are the government supported scientists creditable? The government doesn't support scientists with the other view.
I read your link. Point 1. It's not just a government supported entity, it's a government agency. Point 2. With all their scientific knowledge and resources, why did it take them 5 years to come up with an argument? Could it be that the AGW thing was going so well they simply didn't see a need before then?
I don't have the answer, just more questions. Every argument I hear just produces more questions. It seems never ending.
I fear we'll never know the answer but in 100 years, if the predicted sea level rise doesn't happen, they'll figure out some other man-caused impending disaster to scare the people into supporting the new 'thing' or there will be worse than horrible consequences.
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}
Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....
Date: 19/11/10 06:54 (UTC)Then why are the government supported scientists creditable? The government doesn't support scientists with the other view.
I read your link. Point 1. It's not just a government supported entity, it's a government agency.
Point 2. With all their scientific knowledge and resources, why did it take them 5 years to come up with an argument? Could it be that the AGW thing was going so well they simply didn't see a need before then?
I don't have the answer, just more questions. Every argument I hear just produces more questions. It seems never ending.
I fear we'll never know the answer but in 100 years, if the predicted sea level rise doesn't happen, they'll figure out some other man-caused impending disaster to scare the people into supporting the new 'thing' or there will be worse than horrible consequences.