[LINK] Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Mon Feb 5 13:11:20 AEDT 2007


On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:57:55AM +1100, Daniel Rose wrote:

> > >The IPCC report is not the result of a single study, but a
> > >meta-analysis of all the most up to date work in the area.
> >
> > It's actually an analysis of only the studies which conclude that
> > climate change is happening. Reports and personnel which disagree
> > with the desired findings were jettisoned[1].

i would guess that's because there aren't that many of them, and even
fewer that weren't funded directly or indirectly by the oil industry.

> > That said, even if global warming is complete hogwash, it is still
> > absolutely critical that the world acts right now to counter it,
> > because Peak Oil is right upon us and the two problems require
> > pretty much the same responses.
>
> How can one accept the scientific case for peak oil, and not the case
> for global warming?
>
> Although clearly distinct, there are enough similarities between the
> two that I find it unusual that you assume peak oil as fact, but
> entertain the idea that gw could be complete hogwash.

that would be because they're unrelated - one doesn't depend on the
other. i.e it's possible to have global warming without peak oil, and
vice-versa.

the evidence for both, however, is pretty clear. we ARE running out of
cheaply/easily available oil, and CO2 levels are increasing and ARE
matching increases in temperature. but one doesn't prove or disprove the
other.

as Richard just said, the solution to both problems is essentially the
same: use less fossil fuels, and develop alternative energy sources for
electricity, industry and transport.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

Currently listening to: Sugar - Indigo Bongo

I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me.
		-- Hunter S. Thompson



More information about the Link mailing list