Holmes, do you feel that your position is so weak that you have to resort to creationist tactics to support it?
Holmes writes:
So what do scientists actually think about events like Katrina and Rita...
So you wish to imply that Sir John Lawton is not a scientist, that his statements do not reflect what he thinks or that his statements are inconsistent with the views of the majority of scientists in the field.
Your source refers to "other leading scientists" having a view on the cause of increased frequency of severe hurricanes being something other than global warming. But you fail to mention:
quote:
at least one prominent study suggests that hurricanes have become significantly stronger in the past few decades during the same period that global average temperatures have increased.
and this is further detailed in the linked article:
quote:
In August, MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel reported in the journal Nature that major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent since the 1970s. During that period, global average temperatures have risen by about one degree Fahrenheit along with increases in the level of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from industry smokestacks, traffic exhaust and other sources.
Why cherry pick your source to give the impression that the opposing view is anomolous and your view is suported by the majority of authority?
quote:
Hey but don't let science get in the way of using something scary to support a political position.
—Holmes
This appears to be the pattern of the Bush administration.
™ Version 4.2
