What good are two sides to an argument when the government has already taken sides and just can keep changing the rules to stay in the game. Take for example an exchange of opinions between two scientists in October 2009, as follows:
Kevin Trenberth: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to show that specific global and regional changes resulting from global warming are already upon us. The future projections are for much more warming, but with rates of change perhaps a hundred times as fast as those experienced in nature over the past 10,000 years.”
William Gray: “It is by no means clear that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 and last 100 years is due primarily to human-induced CO2 rises. The globe experienced many natural temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution. How do we know the recent warming is not due to one or a combination of many natural changes that were experienced in the past? There is no way Dr. Trenberth or anybody else can, with any degree of confidence, say that future global warming may be a hundred times faster than anything we have seen in the past. This is pure conjecture.”
Other Top Stories
- I Found a Trout in my Milk, Thoreau...
- Nature and the Global Warming Holism of the Mind
- Cold Logic of Global Warming
- Fear of Global Warming a Phobia
- Hot World Syndrome
- Nature Overshadows Global Warming Science
- The Well-Analyzed Non-Problem of Global Warming
- Global Warming a Liberal Prejudice
- Scientists Name Baby 'Global Warming'
- The Instantiate Nature of Global Warming