chodadog

Well, no. That's not that. And this is the problem with the debate on climate change on both sides. It's full of half truths and omissions. In the 20th century, it's true that humans have put more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes have, but historically, volcano CO2 output has dwarfed human CO2 output. Just one major volcano eruoption is enough to make human CO2 output look insignificant. How do you think the CO2 in our atmosphere got there in the first place? It's from volcanoes.

There was an interesting show on here last night where they interviewed the maker of the Great Global Warming Swindle and had a panel of experts from both sides to have a small debate and discussion. The thing that turns me off about proponents of man-made climate change is how militant they are. The vast majority of the experts from that side of the fence were angry. Just about rabid. Whereas most of the guys from the other side were very well spoken and didn't seem to see the issue as a personal insult to them when a peer disagreed with them.

One of the guys who does not believe in man-made climate change congratulated the host of the show for some hard-hitting questions that did point out flaws in The Great Global Warming Swindle, but said the problem was that the Al Gores of this world were not being put under the same microscope.

The host of the show replied with "So you don't think we should have put him under a microscope?" (talk about twisting the guy's words...)

And he replied with something along the lines of "Of course you should. But you need to put the hard questions to people like Al Gore too."

At which point the host basically laughed it off and said "Well when Al Gore is back in town we'll see about doing that."

The scientist then made a point about a previous interview where he soft talked a protagonist of man-made climate change and suggested re-interviewing him and the host quickly moved to another member of the panel.

__________________
26 + 6 = 1