markus3622
10-16-2005, 09:06 AM
The truth about global warming
John M. Wallace tried to steer Al Gore away from global warming.
The year was 1994 and the vice president was convinced rising temperatures were responsible for recent floods in the Mississippi River Valley.
He invited Wallace, a distinguished climate researcher from the University of Washington, to join a small group of scientists for a breakfast discussion in Washington, D.C.
As Gore sipped Diet Coke, Wallace nervously left the eggs on his own plate untouched.
"It was one of the more awkward audiences I've ever had," he recalled with a chuckle. "I was trying, in a polite way, to tell him he was coming on too strong about global warming."
Like many of his peers, Wallace wasn't convinced greenhouse gases were altering the world's climate, and he thought Gore was straining scientific credibility to score political points.
More than a decade later, Wallace still won't blame global warming for any specific heat wave, drought or flood — including the recent devastating hurricanes. But he no longer doubts the problem is real and the risks profound.
"With each passing year the evidence has gotten stronger — and is getting stronger still."
(snip)
The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting article here. The point I picked up is that it was reasonable to be skeptical about climate change. Environmentalists have had a tendancy to cry wolf in the past on a few issues (global cooling being perhaps the most famous). However, as the evidence has mounted, it's become clear that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem. There is a scientific consensus on climate change, and only a handful of "skeptics". Nearly all the major scientific bodies concur.
It goes over some of the material that's been covered on FC. One of the major points is that "skeptics" have largely been funded by big business who don't publish in scientific journals. Because of their financial clout, they've appeared to be representative of a large constituency, when in fact, they represent a viewpoint barely found in the scientific community.
The bottom line - it's reasonable to be skeptical at first, but by now, the evidence is overwhelming. When you get to the stage when you're having to quote "freelance scientists" and repeat debunked ideas, it's time to admit that perhaps, the scientists are correct.
John M. Wallace tried to steer Al Gore away from global warming.
The year was 1994 and the vice president was convinced rising temperatures were responsible for recent floods in the Mississippi River Valley.
He invited Wallace, a distinguished climate researcher from the University of Washington, to join a small group of scientists for a breakfast discussion in Washington, D.C.
As Gore sipped Diet Coke, Wallace nervously left the eggs on his own plate untouched.
"It was one of the more awkward audiences I've ever had," he recalled with a chuckle. "I was trying, in a polite way, to tell him he was coming on too strong about global warming."
Like many of his peers, Wallace wasn't convinced greenhouse gases were altering the world's climate, and he thought Gore was straining scientific credibility to score political points.
More than a decade later, Wallace still won't blame global warming for any specific heat wave, drought or flood — including the recent devastating hurricanes. But he no longer doubts the problem is real and the risks profound.
"With each passing year the evidence has gotten stronger — and is getting stronger still."
(snip)
The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting article here. The point I picked up is that it was reasonable to be skeptical about climate change. Environmentalists have had a tendancy to cry wolf in the past on a few issues (global cooling being perhaps the most famous). However, as the evidence has mounted, it's become clear that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem. There is a scientific consensus on climate change, and only a handful of "skeptics". Nearly all the major scientific bodies concur.
It goes over some of the material that's been covered on FC. One of the major points is that "skeptics" have largely been funded by big business who don't publish in scientific journals. Because of their financial clout, they've appeared to be representative of a large constituency, when in fact, they represent a viewpoint barely found in the scientific community.
The bottom line - it's reasonable to be skeptical at first, but by now, the evidence is overwhelming. When you get to the stage when you're having to quote "freelance scientists" and repeat debunked ideas, it's time to admit that perhaps, the scientists are correct.