No, sir, WE do not revere anyone. And by we, I mean actual scientists. I assure you that when we sit down to write our scientific articles, the first thing we think is not "Now what would Al Gore have to say about this?"
Carbon Dioxide is not a "tiny piece" of this puzzle. It is a very large piece of it. Many things contribute to the climate (solar energy, circulation patterns, etc), but CO2 is the one that we have control over. It is the one that is changing.
The Discovery Channel and National Parks are not run by climatologists. They are run by television producers and environmentalists, respectively. I do not agree with the alarmist, doomsday scenarios that are put out there. I don't think they do much for the cause except drive a wedge, as you say.
I take great issue with your statement that scientists treat our work as faith-based. Contrary to what people may like to claim, we have no agenda in the things we do. We get just as much grant money for determining that there is no global warming as we do if there is. Probably more, actually.
How much more of a reasoned approach can there be? We can simply come out, explain what we know in terms that everyone can understand, and then wait for someone to twist it around.
Posted on November 12 at 11:24 a.m.Suggest removal
No, sir, WE do not revere anyone. And by we, I mean actual scientists. I assure you that when we sit down to write our scientific articles, the first thing we think is not "Now what would Al Gore have to say about this?"
Carbon Dioxide is not a "tiny piece" of this puzzle. It is a very large piece of it. Many things contribute to the climate (solar energy, circulation patterns, etc), but CO2 is the one that we have control over. It is the one that is changing.
The Discovery Channel and National Parks are not run by climatologists. They are run by television producers and environmentalists, respectively. I do not agree with the alarmist, doomsday scenarios that are put out there. I don't think they do much for the cause except drive a wedge, as you say.
I take great issue with your statement that scientists treat our work as faith-based. Contrary to what people may like to claim, we have no agenda in the things we do. We get just as much grant money for determining that there is no global warming as we do if there is. Probably more, actually.
How much more of a reasoned approach can there be? We can simply come out, explain what we know in terms that everyone can understand, and then wait for someone to twist it around.
On