Global Dimming

PitbullMidwest · May 8, 2006

The other side of yet another coin.

ActivistCash.com says the The Center For Media & Democracy "isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation". The Village Voice said “These guys come from the far side of liberal.”

The CMD is primarily funded by the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology none of which are exactly moderate voices in the global warming debate.

And to be fair ActivistCash.com is funded by The Center for Comsumer Freedom who, in their own right, aren't exactly in the center of the argument either.

Ain't this fun? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

inveresk · May 8, 2006

Ain't this fun?
Curt

It certainly makes for interesting posts and it does emphasise the need to scrutinise sources!!

I guess it comes down to whether we can afford to be wrong. If we believe the doubters and carry on as we are, consuming and polluting, and it emerges in time that we are, indeed, soiling our own nests, by the time the evidence is beyond dispute it could well be too late to do anything about it.

That's why I'm inclined to err on the side of caution and would like to see more affirmative action. If we do so and the safety margin on climate change is discovered to be larger than we initially believed, we'll have polluted less and we'll have exercised prudence in conserving the natural resources which we all have to share.

BB_TX · May 8, 2006

Ain't this fun?

That is what makes these type arguments/discussions so pointless. Each entity picks and chooses their sources and data to support their own agenda and ignores all other to the point that you can't tell who is actually trying to take a neutral stance and present accurate information from both viewpoints. Assuming there is some neutral party out there somewhere. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

inveresk · May 8, 2006

Bill,

These types of posts can be a waste of time if they end up as pi**ing contests.

But if we believe there's a common danger to our collective welfare, to discuss it openly and explore whether it's real or imaginary is important, provided we do it in the framework of exchanging ideas and views, and provided we remember to respect others right to hold and to express their opinions.

BlueRidge · May 8, 2006

( to discuss it openly and explore whether it's real or imaginary is important, provided we do it in the framework of exchanging ideas and views, )

That's not what's happening in the major media. Those who disagree with the party line are either ignored or attacked.

Here's ONE place to get started on hearing the other side:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

NewToy · May 8, 2006

This debate has been politicized for years. You can pretty much tell which side of the aisle one sits by their position on this topic. Once again, this is only MY opinion.

John

have_blue · May 11, 2006

( Ain't this fun?

That is what makes these type arguments/discussions so pointless. Each entity picks and chooses their sources and data to support their own agenda and ignores all other to the point that you can't tell who is actually trying to take a neutral stance and present accurate information from both viewpoints. Assuming there is some neutral party out there somewhere. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

Too bad politics get mixed into these arguments. Our earth is way too important for that.

One can present perfectly valid and persuasive scientific evidence that X is going to happen if we don't stop doing Y. But when the presenter says that we should stop boiling lobsters because they scream; or we should burn all SUV's, it taints their credibility and damages their cause. Weird spices can spoil an otherwise great sauce.

Unfortunately, most top-notch scientists attended universities that indoctrinate them with large doses of radical politics along with physics and chemistry.

Farmwithjunk · May 11, 2006

I'm no scientist. Not even all that smart. But.

Who says the world we live on has to stay the same? Why would nature spend BILLIONS of years evolving, then stop in its tracks once we get what we like?

Global warming, global dimming, weather changes, polar shifts, ect, ect, and so on, MIGHT just be the natural progression of things. In my years on earth, I've noticed spring/summer weather arriving sooner in the calender, summers getting drier, winters becoming shorter and more "abrupt". That's in comparison to my youth. Would I be an idiot if I assumed the weatner was ALWAYS like that BEFORE I came along? Or could it have possibly changed some before then too?

I'd like to see man quit destroying our environment. But "in a perfect world" should we quit polluting, do you seriously think things will stay the same for all of eternity?

Every special interest group, every "Greenpeace wanna-be" has their agenda. They publish their "facts" with all the conclusive evidence they need. Then the next group challenges that info. On and on.

All I know for certain is it's 62 degrees and raining right now. I planned on working in the garden saturday, so it'll rain then too. I try not to worry about things I can't change.

EddieWalker · May 11, 2006

Farmwithjunk,

Very interesting perspective. I had never quite considered it in your terms, but agree with you one hundred percent.

Thank you,
Eddie

NewToy · May 11, 2006

I agree that there may be natural occurances that have an effect on the climate. But, I also believe that the 80 million+ barrels of oil consumed daily around the globe has an effect as well. This is in addition to all the coal, natural gas and anything else burned for fuel. This releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gasses as well as the particulate pollution. I believe we are altering the climate more in the last 100+ years than any other period in the planets history.

John