From here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm
Does the chicken little type of reporting hurt the cause?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm
Does the chicken little type of reporting hurt the cause?
But, it says, there is a mismatch of scale; a conclusion with which Solitaire Townsend, MD of the sustainable development communications consultancy Futerra, agrees.
"The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimise the solution," she said.
I have to worry about what kind of porn they've been watching,
Are you going to try to hijack every single thread into Bush bashing?
Even Pat Robertson has changed his mind about global warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_robertson_1
Those wacky global warming deniers have put themselves to the *right* of Pat Roberston!
It seems to me that if we frame the debate in purely rational terms about possible solutions to problems, and likely outcomes, then there should be no discernable difference between the two.Ah, so you admit that this is about politics rather than science?
Could you just put that in your sig so you don't have to tie that into every single post of yours on subjects that aren't even related?Besides, when alarmists can provoke the U.S. into a needless war, raise suspicion (and fear) that Iran may soon have a nuclear weapon and blame innocent Lebanese people and Israeli people for the carnage they suffer - how difficult can it be for them to state that, "the jury is still out on global warming?"