YOUR COMMENTS

Hi Craig, It looks like we’re all falling back on strawmen to make our points here. :)
What scientists are looking for are arguments that question their findings with scientific reason...and there isn’t any yet. Maybe there will be, but not yet. Until there is, we have to go with it the same way we have to go with gravity until someone proves that wrong. And sorry, I shouldn’t have used the word “refute”, I should have used the word “dispute” instead. Nonetheless, scientific findings are supposed to be disputed. That’s how it works. Someone shows what they think, and others try to prove it right or wrong. Imagine if no one disputed the supposed “fact” that the earth is flat?
Lastly, yes the environment is not stable. But the data is such (I won’t bore you with the details) that shows a whole different kind of change that the earth hasn’t seen in 600,000 years. Apparently, the notion that man being the primary cause explains everything so logically that it is virtually accepted by everyone who is qualified to make an informed opinion. This is what gets me. The people who are arguing against the scientists are not using science or reason to make their arguments. They are simply finding small loopholes in the scientists’ arguments and installing doubt into them without having any real evidence on their side. In their minds, installing doubt is all that’s needed to be right. Their words are passionate, yes, but where is the data to back them up?
- Breyer Sullivan, Manchester, NH

Hey Breyer- People who question the Goracle do not necessarily think global warming is a myth, we just question the motives. Is the planet warming? Sure. Is it warming a lot? I would say no. Is it the fault of man? I will argue all day that it is NOT. I really don't understand why people think the earth's climate is supposed to be stable. You have a whole wealth of factors that we cannot even begin to even understand that contribute to the global warming or cooling of this planet. Also- What sort of pseudo-science do you study that cuts debate and discussion? That's what science is! That's why we still call it the THEORY of gravity and THEORY of evolution. Oh, and on the subject of science and my statement above: You DO NOT put out a scientific theory and challenge people to refute it, it is your job to PROVE IT.
- Craig Davis, Manchester

Hello, Thanks for responding!

Please let me know when the Mr. Goldberg’s of the world produce evidence (scientific facts, empirical data, etc) to refute the virtual consensus of all scientists of the world. I’m waiting. All I hear right now is empty talk. The most legitimate argument I’ve heard so far is from Michael Creighton (the Jurassic Park guy) and all he has is a work of pure fiction to back him up. Please don’t bring up the Rush Limbaugh “melting ice cubes in a glass” fallacy as an argument.
I’m a political independent whose job is in the science/engineering field. I don’t believe that the environment is a political issue. I believe, however, that the argument against global warming is extremely weak with more holes in it than the ozone layer. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with conservatives agreeing with liberals on science. Your response tells me that it is however. Liberals don’t own science and I don’t think they claim to. They do, however, share my frustration that the arguments made by the Mr. Goldberg’s of the world are somehow on an equal scientific platform as people who have actual data to back themselves up. My fear is that science will be branded “liberally biased” not by people like Al Gore, but by people like Sean Hannity.
Lastly, we do agree on the shaky notion of carbon offsetting being some sort of a magic cure-all. What I will say is that it is an effective device to inform people of the positive impact people can make on the planet. The whole point of it, I think, is to get people thinking about environmental responsibility. Planting trees are almost always a good thing…especially in urban areas.
- Breyer Sullivan, Manchester, NH

Breyer - by "intellectual conservative viewpoint" you mean "agrees with liberals , who are never wrong" . You have got to be kidding me. As Mr Goldberg correctly states" ...he (Gore) and his acolytes insist that the time for debate is over." The Democrats and liberal frauds are the ones who refuse discussion. Do as they say not as they do - oh wait I forgot - as long as you buy "carbon offsets" it's OK to pollute the environment!
- J Martin, Manchester

The environment is clearly a wedge issue with the Republicans. Some conservatives are on the side of science, technology, conservation and environmental responsibility while others feel that these facts are all just a "myth" like Zeus or Thor. It is clear to see which side Jonah is on. Unfortunately, instead of arguing his point with logic and reason, Mr. Goldberg decides to go with the cheap joke...making fun of older people. Apparently, the high comical value of an aging Madonna is all the logic he feels he needs to prove his point. "Ha Ha! Mick Jagger needs his hip replaced! Therefore, Al Gore is wrong!"
It's a shame to see such intellectual fraudulence is our media today. What bothers me more is that there is no intellectual conservative viewpoint in the media anymore. It’s all flooded with Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. O’Reilly and their ilk. These people make the party look bad. Have we gotten to the point now where intellectual thought is liberally biased? It feels that today, either we are blindly stomping our American boot upside someone’s rear-end or we are just a bunch of egghead, elitist pansies. There are no other options.
Live Earth might not have been the best trailer for the environmental movement, but it was an honest effort. The fact is that there are loads of smart, logical conservatives that agree with Mr. Gore on this issue. Unfortunately, they are drowned out by dishonest, misleading frauds like John Stossel and Ann Coulter.
No wonder why 2006 went to the Democrats.
- Breyer Sullivan, Manchester, NH