SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Katelew who wrote (224282)3/15/2007 1:59:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
Why then do the majority of scientists reject this as an explanation?



I think when you get down to the fine print, the majority of scientists don't reject it so much as think both solar forcing and greenhouse effects are going on. But then, look at the money. It all goes to those who say that the greenhouse effect is predominent and an imminent catastrophe. Those who say different are derided as heretics or in the pay of oil companies. They certainly don't get grant money.

The Global Warming Catastrophe has become a huge fund raising racket. That much is clear. What the science is once the politics are cleared away, is much less clear.

P.S. I haven't studied the science one way or the other....wouldn't understand it, if I did. I'm pretty open to all explanations, however commonsense suggests there are limits to the earth's abilities to cleanse itself and that there is, indeed, a fine 'balance' of nature.

Commonsense is treacherous because it operates on the scale of a human lifetime. Commonsense tells us that the climate is stable, and we know for a fact that this is not true. Climate changes. The Earth is a dynamic system, so much of what is taught to little children about the "balance" of nature isn't true either.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext