Wednesday, August 22, 2007

I've been spending more time looking into the global warming thing, reading blogs I discovered while looking into the NASA temperature data fumble. As usual I was looking at more links on the Impact site, in particular an article found on Fox.com . Of course, everything is suspect on fox.com , their few extremely outspoken extremists have given them a bad rap - or good rap if you are into their point of view - so that everything that appears there seems tainted somehow.

I googled the author of the article, because of course I read it and it looked fine, and also because of course I realize it may have seemed plausible to me because it throws a contrary light on the CO2 aspect of the whole global warming issue. I wanted to see how credible this guy really is, and of course one of the first entries is Wikipedia. The article there was not very flattering to the guy, but it seemed to be edited by someone far more extreme. So, I went to the discussion of the article, and from there it is plain someone is working awful hard to rationalize their spin on the guy, with few people that want to devote the time and energy it would take to debunk the slant on the debunker. (The guy's name is Steven J Milloy, and he keeps a website called Junk Science, devoted to debunking science myths) Looking back on the google search page, most of the links found advocate against anything this guy says, he gets slammed pretty hard on the Internet. I don't know if it's warranted, and I'm not sure I have the desire, and I know I don't have the time, to make a decision for myself whether it is. Although I would like to, it seems it would be as much a waste of time as this entry is, or as wasted as the hours these people spend attacking this guy. The attackers seem to be kooks, and some time devoted to the website......

I have lost my interest in the whole mess, that didn't take long. On another note, there is an article in the local paper about a boy in Chandler(Phoenix) that was suspended for 5 days. He drew a picture of a gun. Those facts speak for themselves...

No comments: