msnbc.msn.com — It's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
Apr 9, 2007 View in Crawl 4
doubtingthomasApr 9, 2007
loneranger is half right. Extremists exist on BOTH sides of the ideological fence. They refuse to embrace any type of debate. Hell look at Bill O'Reily and to a lesser extent Sean Hannity. They are reactionary and prefer tactics like ad hominem attacks to discredit the opposition as do many far-left liberals (pointing at you Comedy Central). God forbid they could, even for a second, review the facts the other side is presenting. Calling liberalism a disease, how damned childish can you get.I admit, used to listen to Sean Hannity. Then, one day, I heard him bully the s**t out of some poor bastard that was trying to have a nice, calm, intelligent debate with Sean on something Sean totally disagreed with. I lost all respect for him that day, that was also the day I realized wearing the moniker of "Republican" was something I could no longer do in good conscience. I am still fiscally conservative, but that has nothing to do with being a Republican in this day and age.
yakskiApr 9, 2007
Lindzen has been widely discredited as a scientist who really refuses to look at all of the evidence with an unbiased mindset. In fact, he has been caught supporting many ridiculous causes including the idea that man basically cannot change anything in nature, because God is responsible for everything. His basic philosophy seems to be one where his religious beliefs interfere with his scientific assessments. Take his position supporting the tobacco industry, how could any scientist support this lobby group of death dealers, well, Lindzen does and has. There any many other portions of his article that basically refuse to deal with the facts of the case. Basically this is not a scientific piece and does not seriously discuss the issues. More of a generic byline for someone that wishes to propagandize instead of discuss.
zeligApr 9, 2007
When has the debate ever been over in science? Our knowledge always evolves. Something to think about: The ocean gives off and absorbs carbon dioxide continuously. When the ocean gives off C02, it is a far greater amount than all mankind can generate in any given year. Same with organic matter, like leaves and other humus.I am no fan of pollution, but the notion that somehow carbon dioxide is a pollutant and is warming the earth is fascinating because in all of history that's never been true. Every living thing gives off carbon dioxide. No doubt we will know far more in 10 years about global warming/cooling than we do now. Given that much time the data will be far more conclusive, because we will probably know by then whether temperatures will have actually started dropping, or continued to climb. The fact that in the last 10,000 years it has been warmer than today should give anyone pause.
diggablogApr 9, 2007
"The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week." Yes! Yes! Yes! and, Duh!
randfApr 9, 2007
what? using wikipedia as a source to prove/disprove the debatable? get real.did you notice how many "edit" buttons there were on that page? let me know any paragraph you agree with, it will magically change to something new in a few minutes.
ubuwalker31Apr 9, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen</a>The guy is a political hack and argues against the case of man-made global warming, end of story. He is too controversial to take seriously.
coitApr 9, 2007
This has been buried. Typical digg bury brigade...@ubuwalker31 babbled:"The guy is a political hack and argues against the case of man-made global warming, end of story. He is too controversial to take seriously."Ahhh... Wikipedia said it, so it must be true, right?
euangelionApr 9, 2007
@CopperFalconAnd still you didn't address the posters original point.