Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTim  I actually just read this a few months back, its a great read. There's a conference coming up (in NYC) to shed some light on the topic. Here's some excerpts from the website...
"The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak."
"...an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate..."
"...turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation..."
instead of reading the picket signs of hippie wackos, perhaps the media should consult a paleo-climatologist. "the past is the key to the future" |
Yeah....when I read that book I thought to myself, well shit, here's a rational discussion about Global Warming that doesn't submit to mass hysteria and questions the assumptions that the doomsday naysayers are promoting.
Unfortunately, State of Fear is a novel written by Michael Crighton, the same author that brought us a slew of other science fiction novels. Entertaining? yes. Thought provoking? Certainly. Fact? Well, some of it is. But whether the conclusions are accurate remain to be seen.
The DaVincil Code certainly aligned with a lot of my beliefs about Christ and religion. But it too is a novel and has spawned a huge tourist trade and secondary industry. At the end of the day though, it is a work of fiction and as believable as it is the fundamental conclusion is a much a fantasy as the source material it attempts to disprove.
I've read about the upcoming conference and will be interested in the outcome.
M guess is that, like most things, there are elements of useful truth in both sides of the debate. We would probably serve ourselves well to reduce greenhouse gas, dependance on fossil fuels, and figuring out how to trap carbon more effectively. The problem is that until a sane discussion takes place we are at the hands of every whack job on both sides promoting their own schemes to save us all.
And if there is one thing I am sure of, the best thing to do when some one wants to save you is to run for your life!