I never said there was a specific study based upon an exactitude of studies supporting both sides, I don’t think I even implied it. Suppose there are 10,000 articles and publications questioning and/or denying it (with the premise that it is a solely man-made phenomenom). maybe there are 15,000 saying it is scientific fact (based upon those premises). Because it’s adherents are more prolific writers means nothing in terms of validity.
I agree with the RS’s first statement, as I read the rest of it I see it in the context that it is meant to have, about continental drift and plate tectonics, it doesn’t address anything to the quotes supplied by ucodegen “the perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged”. Still, I can see how RS’s statement applies to both sides of the climate change argument.
With all due respect, you (lindismith) don’t supply anything that provides a truly valid argument. Again, you use the label denialists, as I said, dissenting opinions do not necessarily warrant that label. By using it you are closing the door on any type of objectivity that is supposed to be a basis for science.
Yes, Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, who knows why? I would find it unlikely he had an epiphany and has suddenly, unquestioningly embraced the “inconvenient truth” global warming rhetoric. IMHO, it’s because he is trying to find something to give him a modicum of poltical revelence. It won’t.
Now, tell me something more about the science behind our recent ice-age…….
