"Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk"

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

*sigh*

Alright, coming back into the convo.

As Sif said, NOBODY is putting a ridiculously short timeframe on this. Just one that represents the event horizon.

The difference between the two sides is that one is funded by the governments of the world to see what's really going on and uses thousands of reputable and respected men and women as sources for their information, while the other is funded by large corporations who feel that dealing with the problem is going to hurt their profits and have paid people to argue everything from warming itself being a lie to carbon dioxide being good for plant growth (actually, it's not, as it's already passing the point where they're able to compensate for it all, and the oceans aren't absorbing as much as we'd hoped, either) to the data being false.

Now, just at face level, who's more likely to be the ones with the selfish agendas? I'll put money on it being the corporations.



Edit: Hell, if you look at it, what's the HARM of reducing our carbon emissions? Cleaner air? Other than money, I dare you to find a good reason NOT to try to help the environment.