align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfullheartglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

The San Diego Alternative Energy Meetup Group Message Board Politics & Debate › More bogus climate change "experts" on NPR

More bogus climate change "experts" on NPR

A former member
Post #: 315
This "expert" brought nothing to the discussion. No hard links. No data. Basically he said things like "when most scientists agree global warming is caused by humans you know it must be true". Another justification for global warming caused by humans, according to this expert, was because McCain and Obama say it is...

Talk of the Nation, October 17, 2008 · What does a person need to know to be able to discuss climate change in an educated way? Climate expert Michael Oppenheimer discusses the history of climate research and some common misconceptions regarding the global climate.

Oppenheimer is co-curator of the American Museum of Natural History's "Climate Change" exhibition, and is a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95813793­
A former member
Post #: 2
It always amazes me when climate change nay-sayers focus on one speaker who may not make the strongest case and simply ignore all the scientists who HAVE presented data regarding accelerating rates of glacial recession and polar icecaps disappearing faster every year. Why is it so important to these people to prove that they are so much smarter than the gullible public at the potential cost of leaving their own children a planet that is increasingly inhospitable. WHy is it so hard to accept that even if climate change were occurring at a rate that is in line with its historic pace (which it's clearly not), and that evidence of man's contribution to this is inconclusive (which it's not), that the potential cost of YOU being wrong FAR outweighs the cost of the other camp being wrong? It's a simple case of erring on the side of caution, even if you are THAT much smarter than the vast majority of the global scientific community, the risk of inaction is much, much, much, much higher than the risk of taking action to mitigate the warming of the planet. It's a no-brainer (even a 'smart' person should be able to grasp that concept). It seems like many people will continue to play devil's advocate despite time mounting evidence that human activity IS accelerating climate change. Is it an ego thing? that's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy