2007-05-01 04:45:37 · 9 answers · asked by tommyboy33 2 in Environment
Some are, some aren't. However, a lot of the evidence he uses, he distorts to suite his purpose. For example, he states that polar bears "have been drowning" in "significant" numbers. But the basis for this statement is that four polar bears were foud dead after a wind storm. I wouldn't say that four is a very significant number. Also, polar bears just happen to be thriving in this slightly warmer weather.
But the very core of his argument, that humans are causing global warming, which is in turn going to turn the world upside down with storms, droughts, floods, etc., is based on weak, speculative science. He states it as complete fact. I have a problem with that.
2007-05-01 06:41:37 · answer #1 · answered by punker_rocker 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is hype and political tripe. It wouldn't be a very good lie if there weren't a few facts but they are far outweighed by their proposed solutions. It has become a feeding frenzy at the public trough while the pigs squeel for their share of the political global warming slop. The money pushes the science and provides exactly what they look for. It is not science. It is political agenda hiding behind science. If you don't agree, you are a government or industry stooge. I know some leftist geologists and most, to their credit, are extremely skeptical. Others, especially those seeking funding, are not as skeptical for whatever reasons.
2007-05-01 12:48:44 · answer #2 · answered by JimZ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! Right on! The vast majority of climate experts say that global warming is a legitimate threat to our existence. Experts? Ha! I'll believe some random dude here on Yahoo Answers any day. What do those pesky scientists know? :-P
2007-05-01 11:54:52 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He has some facts backing him up, but he has added a lot of hype. And of course he covers up those facts that contradict his position with statements like, "but it is more complicated than that", after which he shows a melting glacier or damaging storm and says how bad it looks.
2007-05-01 11:52:13 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes it's backed by facts! Even if it wasn't, would it be worth the risk? If we try and make it better and it turns out to be hype, what did we hurt? If we do nothing and it's true, then where are we???
2007-05-01 11:50:08 · answer #5 · answered by wish I were 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it's backed by facts. No, it's not hype... no matter what the suit on the cable news channel might indicate.
2007-05-01 12:21:58 · answer #6 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Take a look at this BBC show and then judge for yourself.......
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&hl=en
2007-05-01 12:04:25 · answer #7 · answered by Gene 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mr. president, we have been over this time and time again..
2007-05-01 11:49:21 · answer #8 · answered by dr schmitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some are, some are exaggerations.
2007-05-01 11:48:51 · answer #9 · answered by firstythirsty 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋