As the facts change, does your opinion change?

Question

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Answer 1

Yes the more facts I get the more concerned I become
but I dont agree with that article
government has been trying to take the blame of global warming off of us
whether you believe we are the cause or not we HAVE to do something about it

Answer 2

Here are some more changing facts. If the findings are correct this is going to put the global warming theory a knockout.

In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."

Answer 3

In all honesty, my opinion has never changed on the subject of global warming. I've always believed that what man does has some sort of effect on the environment. However, I also am a firm believer that no matter how "green" we become, the Earth will change with or without our help as it has done forever. I think that global warming as it stands today is nothing more than a political tool used to gain votes. It's a problem, but not as catastrophic as some would have us believe.

Answer 4

I think it's hard to ignore the obvious signs of the glaciers melting away.

Also, I've read reports that the White House has had a hand in editing and changing the reports of scientists and that the White House has also pushed them to lean towards conclusions and research that attempts to prove global warming isn't occuring. When research is tampered with even research that somewhat proves that global warming is occurring could be construed so that it appears just the opposite by taking select data from that research or by rewording or reorganizing the researcher's statements.

The report I read (I believe it was on MSNBC) said that like two-thirds to three-fourths of all researchers felt their research reports and been edited and doctored by the White House with over half saying that the report had been so altered that it no longer represented the original findings. Also three-fourths had stated that they had been pressured by the White House to reach conclusions that stated that global warming was not occuring.

Some of the extremes our President goes to even amazes me.

You have to remember that the government provides most to all of the money for these scientists research. If the White House threatened to cancel your research funding if you didn't reach the conclusion they liked (basically putting you out of a job), don't you think that would have some bearing on the outcome of the research?

Answer 5

I think my opinion is better than facts. You see, facts may change, but my opinion will never change. No matter what the facts say.



But seriously, the word 'fact' is defined as an indisputable truth, so technically facts can't change. The only thing that changes is the way we observe and interpret them. In that vein yes, my opinion bend and shifts to follow whatever the data happens to show. And at present the data almost irrevocably shows that man made climate change is real and happening.

Edit: Come on dude, you didn't *actually* read *James Inhofe's Blog* and think you were getting unbiased fact did you? The man has been using pseudo-science and contrarian arguments to fight global warming theory for years now. In fact, in his (many) Senate hearings on global warming his favorite witness is Michael Crichton. Michael Crichton! A fiction author! Furthermore, he refuses to allow James Hanson, the director of the NASA institute for space studies, and perhaps the foremost expert regarding climate change, to attend any of his hearings. Apparently having an actual scientist present just isn't Inhofe's idea of a well run scientific debate. Much better to use weak rhetoric and fiction authors to make your point. That way your arguments won't sound so spectacularly weak.

Answer 6

I believe that there is a global warming going on. In the news today I read they they discovered a large mass of land, the size of California, melted away in Antarctica. Im not sure if global warming is entirely caused by humans, but I am positive we didnt help the matter. They did find that the last solar flare had something to do with it...but us humans surely didnt help things.

Answer 7

Actually, no it doesn't. i don't believe in man-made global warming. I'm sorry, I'm not conceited enough to believe that humans are the cause of it. I believe that the sun is a major factor that most global warming scientists seem to forget about. How is Mars going through global warming as well if man isn't on that planet running up the CO2?

Answer 8

My opinion doesn't shift all willy nilly...

I have always believed that human beings' abuse of nature would come back and bite us, and it will (and is). Call it what you want... global warming, smog, deforestation, whatever... I believe that our dependence on oil, coal, excesses of water, and things like toxic waste, thermal pollution, abuse of animals and other natural resources are hurting all of us, our health and the health of the planet... and I will continue to believe it until we start making a noticeable difference, and I don't need any scientists to try and change my mind about it.

The balance needs to be restored... pollution in all its terrible forms, regardless of whether "global warming" is just a hot phrase or a real problem, hurts EVERYTHING on the planet. I stand by that thought.

Answer 9

Facts are just that; facts. They cannot change. However, propaganda and politicians change. Give it 5 years, and they will be terrorizing us with some other immanent danger.

Answer 10

Entirely ignoring the article, I would hope that
one's opinion changes as more information
at variance with the original information comes in.

Otherwise, one's opinion is based on nothing
but personal whim.

Oh ... I think you were trying to make an
environmental point which had nothing to
do with your question. Right?