Additional Details
2 months ago
Jazzfan, I think that you are being a little dramatic. I am not “automatically discount[ing] the opinions of tens of thousands of people trained in science.”Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a faculty of only 8[1]. Two of these eight are dead, and none of the rest of the staff is climatologists. Here is a list of the staff[2] and writer[3] for the Heartland Institute. So we are really talking about less than fifty people here, even if you count the dead ones.
You said, “Explain to me why CO2 was 20 times higher than it is today with temp only 7C warmer than today 500 million years ago.”
2 months ago
Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect climate. The most likely explanation is that the Earth was more volcanically active 500 million years ago. Anyhow, 500 million years ago was a geologic era known as the Ordovician Period. Life consisted of arthropods and worms. There is really no comparing between climate change effects on worm civilizations and human civilizations consisting of 8-9-10 billion people.I was going to respond to each of your points, but why should I bother. Deniers can’t be bothered with cursory attempt at understanding the issues. Like you said below, “I%26#039;m not interested in … facts which don%26#039;t favor AGW theory.” So just keep reading blogs on the Heartland Institute’s homepage and pretend that everything is A-Okay.
[1] http://www.oism.org/
[2] http://www.heartland.org/staff.cfm
[3] http://www.heartland.org/fellows.cfm
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (5)
-
Because they don%26#039;t know any better, and right-wing think tanks like these make scientific-sounding arguments that deny AGW.
They just do some internet search for %26#039;global warming is a scam%26#039; and some denier website comes up with these right-wing think tanks listed as sources. And to their credit (and the detriment of those who don%26#039;t know any better), the think tanks do a good job of seeming like a valid scientific source. -
Because they share their political beliefs (basically extreme right wing).
That%26#039;s enough to make them chose those over the National Academy of Sciences, which is really ridiculous.
These conservatives are upset about that kind of behavior, which makes Conservatives as a group look stupid.
%26quot;Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming%26quot;
%26quot;National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate%26quot; -
Because they reinforce the things some people want to believe. And because some people are unwilling to do even the most basic research to see if these groups should be considered a reliable source of scientific (or polling) information.
-
For the same reason you don%26#039;t like fox news, or these institutions. Human bias, the one thing everyone on this forum has in common, yourself included.
-
Why do people think commondreams.org is a reliable source?