tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236125790665654449.post3875767063141505373..comments2024-03-25T12:47:48.246+05:30Comments on Environment and Geology: Some scientists disagree with Global Warming Theory.Environment and Geologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06742566655127435206noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236125790665654449.post-2270140608376328952009-12-16T13:21:35.310+05:302009-12-16T13:21:35.310+05:30Due to the highly politicized nature of the Global...Due to the highly politicized nature of the Global Warming debate, there is almost no funding available from governments or universities for climatologists whose work does not support global warming. This means that the pro global warming science backing is equally biased. Additionally, most fossil fuel companies are not very interested in funding research because they are aware that having their name linked to the research will cause people to immediately dismiss it. In the end this means that there is vastly less money for global warming skeptics, making a balanced political debate very difficult. <br /><br />The recent controversy about the European scientists colluding to conceal contradicting evidence is not the first case I have heard about. I recall one of them saying that they were afraid that publishing their findings as-is would result in loss of funding. I wish I could recall enough detail to easily find some links to that case.<br /><br />That being said, there are a number of reasons for replacing fossil fuels which are not subject to any uncertainty. Coal especially is responsible for both serious pollution from its use and environmental destruction from mining. Coal workers are more likely to develop serious work-related illnesses than workers at nuclear power plants. (I'm unsure as to how much of that information is biased by the economic situations and labor laws of countries which have more nuclear power versus countries which use more coal)<br /><br />The Coal industry in the US briefly tried to put some spin on their product with the term "clean coal" but no one was fooled. What they really meant was "not quite as dirty as some other coal sources" not clean. While I feel bad for the coal workers who likely face job loss in the coming decades, it is easier to recover from losing a job than from lung cancer.Ryan J Fitzmorrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17092492291878029430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236125790665654449.post-2521851479793353642009-12-12T08:07:04.729+05:302009-12-12T08:07:04.729+05:30Un blog muy interesante, me interesa mucho el tema...Un blog muy interesante, me interesa mucho el tema, con permiso te sigo.<br /> Un saludo.-Juan Antonio Torron Castrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16442386858361545626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236125790665654449.post-41717611158003735642009-12-06T00:59:05.958+05:302009-12-06T00:59:05.958+05:30Disputes in science are a necessary part of gainin...Disputes in science are a necessary part of gaining objective knowledge, and divergent views should have a place in every scientific discipline. The thing that concerns me is that the majority of the anti-warming/anti-human-induced warming supporters are driven (in the United States, especially) by a conservative ideology, with backing from "dirty" energy industries. It is so much like the tobacco companies insisting that cigarettes don't cause cancer for decades despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Their profits were threatened, and that's all anyone needed to understand.Garry Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5236125790665654449.post-26662460006050552002009-12-06T00:43:25.099+05:302009-12-06T00:43:25.099+05:30Wow this is interesting. I didn't know that so...Wow this is interesting. I didn't know that some glaciers were growing. Thanks for sharing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com