Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I don't disagree that a good amount of this is agenda-driven, but that doesn't mean it's wrong prima facie. Also, on your list above, at least half really don't support your point at all . . .
|
It certainly throws into question the data used to support the argument. My point being that these were all instances of extremes taken to "protect the population". Banning DDT caused deaths from malaria to rise precipitously. I too cannot use my inhaler for my asthma and the other product does not control my attacks. Red Dye # 2 never was a threat. This just reminds me of the story of the "boy who cried wolf". Who the heck is going to believe these "experts" after all these frauds?
I reject that there is actully manmade global warming. The earth may or may not be warming but so what. How do we know that this is not just the "hand of God" sending the Earth through it's normal cyclical temperature change? How do we know that other countries will not benefit from an increase in the temperature of the Earth? How do we know that there really will be deleterious effects from failing to jump on the band wagon and spending multibillions of $$ for someone like Al Gore's pet projects? This is agenda driven and I suspect it is a racket for some intellectuals to make lots of $$$$ via grants etc. With the data now in question, I would hope that those who have been supporters would now insist that there be new reasearch into the true changes in climate temperature.