James Davis, Jr.
Sure we do, but how big of a role? One volcanic eruption releases more crud into the atmosphere than humans have in our entire history.
1) Even if man doesn't have much influence in global warming: what's the harm in discussing ways to limit manmade greenhouse gases? Automobile emissions cause a lot of other problems besides global warming...smog, respiratory problems, decay of buildings, and stone structures.
Reduction of carbon dioxide could only be a good thing, IMO.
2) Funny, how all of Mike's bluster about the coverup of the MSM, et al, ad nauseum, et undocumented, et untrue...that he ignores a much greater, much more easily documented coverup and censorship, of scientific data (brace yourselves...Mike Sigman "Rage Against Anti-American'ism" coming up).
And that's the dealings of the Bush Administration. They've hardly been upfront with their approach to the problem, now have they?
Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?
More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.
These findings, part of a new report compiled by two watchdog groups, shed new light on complaints by a scattering of scientists over the past year who have publicly complained that Bush administration appointees have tried to mute or muzzle what researchers have to say about global warming.
"We are beyond the anecdotal," says Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), one of the two groups, referring to press reports of a dozen instances of interference that have emerged over the past 12 months. "We now have evidence to support the view that this problem goes deeper than just these few high-profile cases."
Global-warming science must be accurately represented to enable lawmakers to craft adequate policies to control the problem and adapt to climate change, Dr. Grifo says. Scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies working on climate-related issues are doing excellent work. "But it's under threat, and they are struggling to get their results out" to the general public, she says.
I believe that the global warming debate deserves a fair hearing. But, the Bush Administration and the oil companies have taken extroadinary measures to prevent this issue from getting a fair hearing. Instead, we have double-talk, political wrangling, and science-for-sale.
But Mike likes to pretend that none of that matters.
The interesting point is that the "Man did it" idea has always been a "maybe", but the MSM and liberal scientists have played it as a certitude. Now the question is.... shouldn't this deliberate malfeasance be punished if it turns out they're wrong and presenting distorted science (like the last IPCC report did)?
"Liberal scientists," Mike?? That implies that there is a "liberal science," and that scientists present facts, based first upon their political beliefs.
In all my years of dealing with scientists (and I've met more than a few): I have yet to find a scientist that manufactures data to suit his politics. I'm sure that it's done: but you're hard put to prove that there's some pattern
of it, within the scientific community.
What you CAN easily prove (if you had a shred of objectivity) is that science IS economically biased. A scientist working for an oil corporation WILL present slanted viewpoints, to suit his bank account.
But to suit his political beliefs?
Politics do not pay the bills, Mike.