Monday, July 10, 2006

Tom Brokaw Jumps On Al Gore's Global Warming Bandwagon

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw delivers a global warming documentary Sunday night at 9 p.m. on the Discovery channel. The special was made in cooperation with the BBC and Brokaw concurs that the science is "irrefutable."


priv8pete said...

There's no denying that global warming exists, but we've only been keeping temperature records for 125 years. For all the old-earth, evolutionists (which I assume to be everyone reading this blog except me), don't you believe that there were numerous ice ages over the last few billions of years? So, between those ice ages there would have to be periods of global warming before that trend capitulated and global cooling began. Are you really so sure we have altered the earth's climate cycles using a sample size of 125 out of 6 billion? Not that fighting global warming isn't an important endeavor, but it seems rather egotistical to think that we could overcome the same cycle that you believe brought us about.

Michael in New York said...

Pete, you and I aren't scientists. But there are MANY more ways of tracking warming trends for tens of thousands of years -- not just 125 years -- that are akin to tree rings, like ice core samples at the North and South Pole and many, many other methods. Global warming is not simply the precursor to the next Ice Age, which is a naturally occuring, cyclical event. It is a man-made phenomenon unrelated to that. And not fair of you to claim the sample size is 125 out of six billion when you don't accept the six billion figure anyway, I assume. It comes down to science -- either you accept science (which keeps the planes in the air and cures your kids when they're sick, etc.) or you don't. The ONLY debate is in the traditional media and between untrained rubes like me and you. There is no science questioning global warming -- just oil company funded studies to muddy the water. Any way, even if it wasn't causing global warming, don't you think it's a good idea to aggressively pursue all sorts of alternative fuel technologies so we can reduce our dependence on oil from countries that hate your God and want to kill us and treat their own people like dirt? And don't you think just for the sake of breathing that we'd rather have cars and trucks that emit water vapor (for example) instead of noxious fumes? I'd say the only thing that is egotistical is trying to use scientific jargon to attack science when you don't accept science in the first place. So there! Na-na-na-na-na-na!