Is this how global warming "scientists" intend to end the debate?

Question

Without debating about whether global warming is happening, or anthropogenic, or not, is there any room in this discussion for this type of rhetoric in a scientific debate?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

Doesn't this relegate the discussion to the status of religious war?

Answer 1

The fact that greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation had been settled science for nearly two years. For nearly fifty years, scientists have been able to qualify the amount of warming that’ll happen with artificially increased CO2 concentration. The scientific basis for global warming is settled.

While I don't advocate the jailing of "denier" politicians, there action CAN be thought of as a crime against humanity. I'm sure that Dr. Suzuki’s comments were spoken out of frustration, and were not meant to be taken seriously.

Edit: Note to Noah Tall:  Who better than a zoologist to study the impacts of global warming on animals?

Answer 2

I assume you're referring to the story about David Suzuki's comments.

http://tinyurl.com/2d4vpx

"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."

The statement elicited rounds of applause.

"He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, who covered the event. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue."

When asked for further comment, Dan Maceluch, a spokesman for Dr. Suzuki, said that he did not mean the statement to be taken literally.

"He's not advocating locking people up, but he is pulling his hair out."

While I understand and share Suzuki's frustration, I certainly don't think these sorts of comments are appropriate.

"Doesn't this relegate the discussion to the status of religious war?"

No.  What does religion have to do with anything Suzuki said?

Answer 3

What debate are you referring to?  

The appearance that there is a debate is simply a myth promoted by American media for ratings purposes, which increases their ad revenue.

If there's a religiions side ot the issue, it would be the people that put blind faith in the junk science propaganda being funded by ExxonMobil and willfully presented by Fox News and others.

Answer 4

It's an interesting situation.  Completely forget about global warming or any scientific theories.  Think instead of when, if ever, is it appropriate to hold politicians responsible for negligence to the level of great public harm?

For example, if politicians have been briefed that there is intelligence indicating a terrorist group may be coming to their city and planning an attack on event XYZ.  They are told they should cancel event XYZ, for the safety of the public.  But the corporate sponsors of XYZ, don't want to lose the money. So the politicians decide to merely beef up security at XYZ, since the intelligence could be wrong.  The terrorists kill 1000 people. Should the politicians be held accountable and thrown in jail?

It seems that Suzuki is raising the issue of political negligence and not preventing scientists from on-going discussions, research, and solidifying of what we know about AGW.  Obviously, he can't be taken seriously, and was probably only trying to gain attention to political inaction.

Answer 5

Well they state that alcohol will soon be banned.  Ethanol is now a leading trigger which causes global warming.  And, majority of religions ban alohol.  So yes I think it the religious fruitcakes banning alcohol stating ethanol is a trigger to global warming.

Answer 6

I would go so far as to say that I wish some of the acts of the current administation were punishable by some criminal law.  

What I am referring to is President Bush appointing an oil company lobbyist to head the EPA and another one to head the dept. of the Interior. The EPA was begun to protect OUR environment, not to protect the profits of oil companies.  This is so dishonest, that at least in my mind, it should be an impeachable offense.,

And then when Bush's own climate scientists came up with a report showing that man is causing global warming, he had his lawyers change the wording of the scientist's report to fit his own oil centric agenda..

That too, in my mind, should be an impeachable offense.

Answer 7

Dana, you forgot to point out Dr. Suzuki is not a climatologist, he is a zoologist, and as such he has no credibility on formulating professional opinions about the climate, right?

Answer 8

Do you mean the debate on how much AGW is occurring, because there is no debate as to the science of CO2 forcing. I certainly don't approve of the comments.