rcronk
11th February 2008, 01:36 PM
Setting aside completely the causes and general effects of global warming, if that's possible - is anyone else disturbed by the way "global warming" is being used politically in specific cases?
For example, John Kerry recently said, speaking of the tornadoes in the south of the U.S. in the past week - without any specific scientific proof:
"[i] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms. And insurance companies are beginning to look at this issue and understand this is related to the intensity of storms that is related to the warming of the earth. And so it goes to global warming and larger issues that we’re not paying attention to. The fact is the hurricanes are more intensive, the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense at certain places at certain times and the weather patterns have changed."
Many said the intensity of the California wildfires in the past months was caused by global warming without any studies being done to prove that assertion directly.
I have not seen any specific facts or scientific studies presented to provide a direct link between these specific incidents and global warming. Does anyone know of any studies that directly link these two incidents to global warming? If not, isn't this just global warming scaremongering and woo?
Regardless of what we think of global warming and it's causes and effects, shouldn't we be skeptical of how political advantage is being gained in the name of global warming? Shouldn't politicians and the media be more cautious about making links between specific events and global warming in the absence of specific proof? Are the same people who believe in AGW arguing just as hard against these types of assertions about specific incidents? If not, why not? Are those who are against AGW more skeptical of these specific links between global warming and these events?
For example, John Kerry recently said, speaking of the tornadoes in the south of the U.S. in the past week - without any specific scientific proof:
"[i] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms. And insurance companies are beginning to look at this issue and understand this is related to the intensity of storms that is related to the warming of the earth. And so it goes to global warming and larger issues that we’re not paying attention to. The fact is the hurricanes are more intensive, the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense at certain places at certain times and the weather patterns have changed."
Many said the intensity of the California wildfires in the past months was caused by global warming without any studies being done to prove that assertion directly.
I have not seen any specific facts or scientific studies presented to provide a direct link between these specific incidents and global warming. Does anyone know of any studies that directly link these two incidents to global warming? If not, isn't this just global warming scaremongering and woo?
Regardless of what we think of global warming and it's causes and effects, shouldn't we be skeptical of how political advantage is being gained in the name of global warming? Shouldn't politicians and the media be more cautious about making links between specific events and global warming in the absence of specific proof? Are the same people who believe in AGW arguing just as hard against these types of assertions about specific incidents? If not, why not? Are those who are against AGW more skeptical of these specific links between global warming and these events?