Other side of debate

I think that there are two sides to every debate. While, I am pro-environment, I'm not sure we are killing the environment. Check out www dot earthhasacold dot com.

Share this

Oh dear, I see Earth has a cold has a prominent link to guff re the [url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_a... Institute of Science and Medicine[/url].


nuff said, I think.

The link you provided is extremely biased and paints any research against global warming as "eccentric" and "on the fringe". In fact, research that finds global warming may not be our fault is not so "on the fringe" as people are lead to believe. If you want to know who they are maybe you should check out their link( www dot oism dot org ) instead of the link that clearly was written by someone with an agenda to smear the institute.

The truth is that:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life.

You'll notice that they were founded in 1980. They're not some overnight organization invented to debunk man-made global warming.

Long Live GWB.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. That link is to a wikipedia type site. Who knows what it even said yesterday. It was written by random individuals with motives against the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Long Live GWB.

So OK, the OISM has adopted pooh-poohing warming as a cause, after starting w some highly dodgy right wing US Christian views - note the sourcewatch article re books saying nuclear bombs not so bad really, and flogging material like old edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica for serious money.
Might be allied to kinds of people who build museums w dinosaurs pulling carts and so forth. See, eg, re idiocy and "gut" views over science etc: [url=http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207GREETINGS]Greetings from Idiot America[/url].

Anyways, there is no scientific debate re validity of global warming; just as no scientific debate re earth being round, earth going round sun, evolution, plate tectonics, gravity...
Any such "debate" - in absence of alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny, explains observations (and my "dr" is for phys chem, real hard science, so I have some notions re theories) - is bogus and diversionary.
[I used to believe H5N1 was major threat to humanity; till I saw re evolution and viruses inc flu - theory that fit various facts that were otherwise tough to explain: as theory should.]

It would be nice to think global warming's just a matter of opinion; nice to continue with illusion this is just a "debate", which is really somewhat trivial, or that reality can change depending on your political or religious viewpoint.
Sadly, that's not the case.

Evidence is strong and building that warming is an issue. For instance:
[quote]a new analysis in Nature that paints a dark portrait of what a warming world will look like in the years to come.

The researchers assessed 829 geologic phenomena—including melting glaciers—along with nearly 30,000 changes in plants and animals (from bird migration patterns to plummeting penguin populations), and found that about 90 percent of them are in sync with scientists' predictions about how global warming will alter the planet.[/quote]

There is, however, plenty of scope for debate re what we do about warming.
Big Fat Nothing seems the general consensus, despite some fine words.

We can fight terrorists real and imaginary and so forth, respond - when allowed to - to disasters as they happen; yet here we are, overwhelmed by this issue. And in too many cases, just in denial, heads thrust firmly in sand, sometimes clinging too tightly to keys to the SUV.