Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must have missed something. What makes it clear why Gore refuses to debate this?
Could it be his businesses that stand to go wild with the law passed the other day and probably sit and stagnate if the link that uggabugga gave us is true? I certainly think so
In science, once you have evidence contrary to your prediction that invalidates your hypothesis and/or your methods and/or your assumptions.
Forgetting all this other stuff, the mere evidence that the planet is cooling, not heating while carbon dioxide increases disproved the global warming theory.
But this thing is so wrapped up in politics now that it will take some mighty powerful people to move it back into the scientific realm where it can be studied further.
The consensus is among "scientists" who get huge grants of money from the UN and its groups. Most of those scientists do not happen to be climatologists. I wonder why science is broken down into specific studies if this crap is true. Let the physiologists predict weather and so on. Nope, not for me.
Not true.
1) Most climate scientists don't get their grants from the U.N.
2) Most climate scientists are, in fact, climatologists--working with physicists, ecologists, and geographers, among others.
Believe it or not, I've been a skeptic of global warming, but I also recognize that the majority consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and that it is caused (at least in part) by humans. Because I'm not a scientist, I don't feel like I have much to back up my skepticism.
For those who are skeptics, do you believe that the majority of scientists are lying about it?
I am not sure that it is a majority of scientists but I'll take your word for it. My opinion:
They see increases in CO2 levels in ice cores, they have empirical evidence showing what runaway CO2 levels do in the form of the planet Venus, where the surface temp is like 800 degrees C., and they declare that the current barely measurable increase in Earth's surface temperature is caused by these manmade CO2 increases.
Anyone who knows about the history of this planet knows that the average surface temperatures over the last billions of years have fluctuated wildly, sometimes over the course of decades.
A scant 7,000 years ago there was a mile thick sheet of ice where I am typing this post right now. And instead of being only a half mile from the ocean I would have been more than two hundred miles away from it.
Ha! Another fake wingnut story. Why are you all so gullible?
It's a report written by economists, with very questionable sources. It should probably be withdrawn and reviewed - unlike, say, that DHS report on the potential for right-wing violence that should have been released but was pulled back because of all the cry-babies on the right.
Carlin has a BS in Physics and a PhD in Economics.
He's worked for the EPA for 38 years.
He's now updating databases in his "new" job..might he be a bit overqualified ?
And from the original post link all his report is saying is that the EPA used at least 3 year old data and didn't take into account any of the recent findings and that there could be a better cheaper way to do this than regulating carbon.
snippet:
"Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide."
"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."
Here the letter from a right wing organization that started this outrage from wingnuts who have no idea about the scientific evidence behind global warming.
Keep in mind this "report" offerred no scientific evidence and was from a man with no training in the science of global warming, nor was he working on matters dealing with global warming.
The wingnuts want you to take your advice about global warming from Exxon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
