"'Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,'"
I think it is a great idea. I mean if the "science" behind global-warming is so sound, why wouldn't it stand up to cross examination? Coleman also says:
"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.
The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.
"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?
"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."
So how about it? Somebody want to make Al put his science where his mouth is?
5 comments:
While I don't believe in the Al Gore version of global warming I do acknowledge that there are things happening on this planet that need explanation and may potentially cause us problems in the future. So, all I see this doing is proving that we still don't really know what is going on and that, inevitably, we're going to have to change how we react to the world anyway. Whether global warming is caused by man and can be stopped is irrelevant when we look at the fact that we can't sustain ourselves on the fossils fuels blamed for GW in the first place. Oil will run out and we're going to have to switch to different fuel sources, most likely environmentally happy ones. Otherwise we'll be left in the dust and you can bet we'll see this economy fall even further. The U.S. really needs to think about its technological position in the world. Wouldn't it be in our best interest to be at the forefront of these new fuel sources? If we pioneered the hydrogen fueled car and made it efficient, economically useful, etc. that would do us a whole lot of good.
I really don't care if global warming is "real" (in the Al Gore sense) as much as I care about the fact that we do have to change how we deal with things. If GW is real it's most likely going to happen no matter what we do. Can we really make China stop driving gas powered cars? Or India? So, it's really stupid to think we can change anything in the world anyway. We should focus on our world and the pieces of the world we have some pull with...let those others follow when the oil runs out.
Ah yes, move over Bill Gates you have been replaced by my new hero John Coleman. Thanks for posting this, very interesting news. I would love nothing more than to see Al Gore proven wrong about this.
An intelligent discussion where all the data are studied would be a refreshing change. I'm not sure a court of law would provide that - we need to get past the "I'm right and you're wrong" mind set. As long as this issue is treated as a contest of wills or opinions the truth is left out of the equation. Put away all previous assumptions and look at all the data in an objective, scientific way. Then maybe the true picture will emerge and we will know what, if anything, we can do to effect a change.
I don't have an issue with people who want environment friendly alternative energy. That is completely different from global-warming and has the benefit of being an intelligent approach to an inevitability. What I don't like is having prphets of doom like Al spouting psuedo-science and forcing people to behave in a planet friendly manner. If man is the cause of climate change then man is doomed because no one has ever successfully legislated behavior for all of humanity. And no one ever will. But that won't stop nanny staters from bludgeoning business, industry and normal citizens of Western cultures over the head with overly restrictive eco-legislation.
I have lots of problems with the global warming crowd too, but it comes only from a scientific perspective. I know a lot of people don't buy it from a political perspective (I'm not assuming that association with you, though). There just isn't enough evidence to suggest that GW is the cause of man, and like you said, if it is, can we really change it? Sure, we might be able to control the U.S. and our allies, but there are plenty of nations who are just now having their industrial revolutions that we couldn't dream of controlling. I think a better way to look at GW, if it is, in fact, caused by man, would be to figure out ways to counteract the pollution rather than trying to shut down businesses, impose unrealistic standards, etc. Someone has to have a smart enough brain to create a machine that can suck all those bad things in the atmosphere that do exist, though whether they are some primary cause of GW is another argument entirely.
One problem I do have with a court based decision is in the judge him or herself. You can't have a judge who believes in GW as manmade anymore than you can have a judge that believes in the counter argument. You have to have a completely unbiased approach, which means having a judge that just doesn't know and needs to be thoroughly convinced from substantial evidence.
There is evidence of GW, but there is evidence to the contrary too. Someone with an unbiased position on the matter should look at it and make an objective decision with both sides put out in front. That's going to be a hard thing to do even in the scientific community. At one point the GW people were shoved aside and not listened to, even though some things they had discovered was of significant scientific value, and now it's turning in the opposite direction. There needs to be more inclusion to this whole thing.
Post a Comment