Of course this is why they're in such a hurry. The truth is coming out more and more. If they don't pass cap and tax now they know it will never happen. This is why they add 300 page ammendments at 3am. and force a vote a few hours later. Because if the American people learn the truth they will reject it.
One quick question: how can you be sure that this one paper by the EPA economist is right, and all the papers by actual climate scientists are wrong? Why is this guy's opinion "the truth?" I thought the critiques I posted by climate scientists made some good points (not that you read them I suppose).
Gary, what exactly is your argument? Is it that global warming is happening? Is it that humans are causing global warming? Give me you bottom line position.
I do think anthropogenic global warming is happening. Rhino and Donkey think otherwise. I've cited the opinions of the IPCC, the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society and others as demonstrating a fairly broad scientific consensus. In this thread Donkey has cited a paper by an economist that has already been shown to have been largely copied and pasted off GW deniers sites on the internet. In a previous post they cited a nonpeer reviewed article from a LaRouche magazine. My question to them has been why are their sources more credible than mine. So far they haven't answered.
The two links you provided were not peer reviewed. BITCH!
Every liberal media source I can think of has linked to or referenced Paul Krugmans recent article on global warming... notice noone tried to discredit him for just being an economist. Wonder why, oh yeah he agrees with you.
We have provided numerous scientific facts explaining why the earth was warming and now cooling. You have provided opinions and sheep mentality mass hysteria. Your side ignore the sun for fucks sake. Your side created the hockey stick graph. Your side has Algore. Your side is trying to silence and censor the truth in order to further a political agenda. If carbon was sooooo bad, is taxing it the answer? Jackass. Should we start taxing murder and rape to cut down on crime?
For all the big names you claim to have on your side you and your sheepish ilk have still been unable to link any proof whatsoever linking the carbon output of mankind to global temperature. None. (please see new post and illustration to fully understand the absurdity of your claim)
If anything due to the recent cooling trend just as in the Oligocene and Eocene epochs when carbon was at a minimum five times higher than today (followed by cooling) I would tend to think that carbon is a lagging indicator if any at all.
I haven't read Paul Krugman's article so no comment.
You still haven't answered my question, which I've stated numerous times in different ways: why are the articles/studies/opinions of the minority of skeptics necessarily right over and against all the scientists on the other side?
I know my links weren't peer reviewed, they were links to articles on blogs. But it's certainly a valid point that the deniers never seem to publish in scientific journals.
Your points are getting sillier. You would have us believe that the National Academy of Science doesn't know that the sun provides warmth. They do but they also know that the global warming isn't caused by solar variance because the sun's output is constantly monitored. They also know that C02 is only a little over 3% of the atmosphere. Really they do. You are not pointing out some big whole in their reasoning that they have just stupidly overlooked.
And the Earth isn't cooling. The average temp went down a bit in 2007 due to El Nino but resumed rising in 2008. Hell, one of the graphs in that economists study that purported to show a rising trend only showed 3 years, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and it showed that much.
And yes "taxing" C02 is a good idea although it's really more of a fine.
8 comments:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/
Of course this is why they're in such a hurry. The truth is coming out more and more. If they don't pass cap and tax now they know it will never happen. This is why they add 300 page ammendments at 3am. and force a vote a few hours later. Because if the American people learn the truth they will reject it.
One quick question: how can you be sure that this one paper by the EPA economist is right, and all the papers by actual climate scientists are wrong? Why is this guy's opinion "the truth?" I thought the critiques I posted by climate scientists made some good points (not that you read them I suppose).
Gary, what exactly is your argument? Is it that global warming is happening? Is it that humans are causing global warming? Give me you bottom line position.
I do think anthropogenic global warming is happening. Rhino and Donkey think otherwise. I've cited the opinions of the IPCC, the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society and others as demonstrating a fairly broad scientific consensus. In this thread Donkey has cited a paper by an economist that has already been shown to have been largely copied and pasted off GW deniers sites on the internet. In a previous post they cited a nonpeer reviewed article from a LaRouche magazine. My question to them has been why are their sources more credible than mine. So far they haven't answered.
The two links you provided were not peer reviewed. BITCH!
Every liberal media source I can think of has linked to or referenced Paul Krugmans recent article on global warming... notice noone tried to discredit him for just being an economist. Wonder why, oh yeah he agrees with you.
We have provided numerous scientific facts explaining why the earth was warming and now cooling. You have provided opinions and sheep mentality mass hysteria. Your side ignore the sun for fucks sake. Your side created the hockey stick graph. Your side has Algore. Your side is trying to silence and censor the truth in order to further a political agenda. If carbon was sooooo bad, is taxing it the answer? Jackass. Should we start taxing murder and rape to cut down on crime?
For all the big names you claim to have on your side you and your sheepish ilk have still been unable to link any proof whatsoever linking the carbon output of mankind to global temperature. None. (please see new post and illustration to fully understand the absurdity of your claim)
If anything due to the recent cooling trend just as in the Oligocene and Eocene epochs when carbon was at a minimum five times higher than today (followed by cooling) I would tend to think that carbon is a lagging indicator if any at all.
Wow. Why so emotional today?
I haven't read Paul Krugman's article so no comment.
You still haven't answered my question, which I've stated numerous times in different ways: why are the articles/studies/opinions of the minority of skeptics necessarily right over and against all the scientists on the other side?
I know my links weren't peer reviewed, they were links to articles on blogs. But it's certainly a valid point that the deniers never seem to publish in scientific journals.
Your points are getting sillier. You would have us believe that the National Academy of Science doesn't know that the sun provides warmth. They do but they also know that the global warming isn't caused by solar variance because the sun's output is constantly monitored. They also know that C02 is only a little over 3% of the atmosphere. Really they do. You are not pointing out some big whole in their reasoning that they have just stupidly overlooked.
And the Earth isn't cooling. The average temp went down a bit in 2007 due to El Nino but resumed rising in 2008. Hell, one of the graphs in that economists study that purported to show a rising trend only showed 3 years, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and it showed that much.
And yes "taxing" C02 is a good idea although it's really more of a fine.
I'll address your latest post above.
Post a Comment