At the moment, you can watch the 8-minute piece here:
A complete transcript of the segment is available here.
Some related text from Stossel is here.
This October 21 comment from the above link's comment section is a good one:
In the end, there seems to be two kinds of people in the debate. Those that are critical thinkers; skeptical as they may remember global cooling scare or the threat in the 70s that oil would run out by 1987 or 1993, those that are wise enough not to accept Al Gore's "the debate is over" claim, when we actually understand about 10-30% of the issue at best, those that realize the "consensus" is that the globe has been warming for 150+ years (most of it having occurred before 1950 and we started putting out a lot of CO2), those that realize the models are weak or that Solar activity/output is a better/more likely forcing factor with a better correlation to temperature than CO2, those that realize the Mann hockey-stick models flaws (in overweighting bristle-cone pines, and over weighting late rises and undervaluing earlier swings) --- and the other side. Those that believe politicians like Al Gore, or other chicken little's in the media or science that are exploiting the issue for personal gain. I prefer to be skeptical and keep my mind open, to being a sheeple following the latest fad crisis. But heck, to each their own. I realize I probably won't change their minds. As long as they stop trying to pretend that I and people like me don't exist -- or that we're just evil bastards trying to harm the environment -- then I'm fine. But their hate-mongering and mislabeling "my kind" can only foster more hate/anger/backlash. At least Stossel aired the other side, that we exist, and that we aren't all evil uninformed bastards. And for that, the other side is angry. How dare he.
No comments:
Post a Comment