Just caught the end of a piece on ABC's 20/20 (I think) by reporter John Stossel in which he interviews a few of the (many) scientists who think the global warming BS is so much unscientific, purchased, political, poppy cock.
It's not easy for a scientist to say that in today's media, since they're usually blackballed if they dare whisper anything scientific that doesn't toe the line, but these guys were involved with that government report and bailed out on it when it became obvious that it wasn't concerned with empirical evidence, but was trying to prove a predetermined result. (It was also populated by non-scientists, so how you get a scientific report out of it is a tad bewildering, no?)
Lookit ... sure there's global warming. But there always has been and always will be, just like there will always be global cooling and ice ages.
Does that mean we should just go ahead and pollute? No, but it also doesn't mean that we should spend zillions of dollars on controls that are based on flawed scientific (and sometimes wrong science) evidence, or emotional and politically-driven extrapolations.
Anyway ... hear, hear, to Stossel for having the balls to show the other side of the issue.
I think they call that journalism, but it's been so long since I've seen any that I forget.
No comments:
Post a Comment