 Legions of Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptics
|
Posted on 05/24/2011 8:40:25 AM PDT by MichCapCon
Former Utah Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman made national news this week when he told Time Magazine that he was inclined to believe that public policy decisions over what to do about global warming should be left to the 90 percent of climate change scientists that he believes are concerned about serious damage resulting from global warming. Huntsman is often mentioned as a possible GOP Presidential candidate in 2012.
From the Q&A:
TIME: You also believe in climate change, right?
HUNTSMAN: This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological (study of tumors) community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.
The comments were picked up by many blogs and news sites and were shocking to some in a conservative movement still trying to sort out the possible presidential candidates.
But is the “90 percent” figure really representative of the climate science community, and who are those scientists supposedly in the 90 percent camp?
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
Huntsman is a political joke...along the same lines as Snowe, Browne, Collins, McCain, Liebermann, Graham, Romney.... =.=
ditto.
ootah’s going progressive.
90% of Astrologers think there’s something to Astrology also
These are basic questions that should have been addressed in any valid methodology yet we never see answers or even references to these questions. The "science" is very suspect.
90% ? 125 IPCC hacks, are 90% of 35000 ?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2724194/posts?page=36#36
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/hiding-the-decline-in-washington-dc/
...and apparently Rove and Bush support this guy in 2012? WHY ?!?
Let’s make a caveat to Mr. Huntsman and the 90%er’s. They can have some say over climate change legislation if they have not have taken money from the government for research or education, and don’t carry a stock portfolio loaded with GE. I’m willing to bet the vast majority of warmers have their hand in the government trough or a financial interest in some alternative energy company.
the questions have been addressed. in the past few years, there have been many peer reviewed papers that debunk AGW.
many reputable scientists have gone on record saying AGW is a complete hoax. the most costly hoax in human history...
...not to mention reports showing how the AGW scientists have actually been fudging data, to “hide the decline”.
(for example, they not only alter recent temperatures upwards, they actually LOWERED temperature records up to 100 years ago, to artificially increase the slope...
and they have removed literally THOUSANDS of temperature stations from the records, mostly the rural and more northern ones, to artificially increase the average temp.)
Wonder if that has any effect on the issue?
The phrase “climate change” is an example of Newspeak.
Real-world Newspeak has the following characteristics:
A phrase is used in such a way that it denotes more than one thing, one being the English meaning of the phrase, the other(s) being something politically tendentious. Which is meant at any given time depends on the whim of the left (”The Party” if you will), according to what the political advantage of the left.
English translations of the Newspeak “climate change” are
1. climate change
2. global warming
3. anthropogenic global warming
Again, depending not on context, but on the whim of the left according to their political advantage.
Similar analyses can be preformed on the left’s use of the phrases or words “health care” and “racism/t”.
Those are great questions that are frequently asked. The answer is usually that human activity is *exacerbating* what may be a natural phenomena, causing it to accelerate even more rapidly. The pick-up in the rate of melting arctic ice, and charts that tie hydrocarbon release to warming Earth’s temperature averages, are a few of the connections that are made.
USA Today actually ran an editorial today, comparing climate-change deniers to birthers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-05-16-Report-puts-climate-change-deniers-in-hot-seat_n.htm
The question remain: Leaving causes aside, if climate change is occurring, what do we do? The economic impact is going to be huge.
Or would it be better just to deal with problems as they arise, and ignore the entire thing?
Even if 90% DID think climate change was occurring, most of them would not infer that it was necessarilly caused by man, as opposed to natural cycles of the Earth.
As throughout history, all we can do is ADAPT to the changes in climate. Some of the money being spent on the silly notion that humans can actually alter the climate, could be better spent on learning the ways humans can adapt to the changes, whatever they are. Leave most of it in the pockets of the people who are going to have to be doing the adapting!
Legions of Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptics
|
You don't get it. This is not a serious question, this is a SCAM, it is about taking money out of your pocket and giving it to people who are going to control what you buy, how you live and what you say.
By driving up all of your energy costs, your wealth will flow from you to people who are going to enslave you. And the neat thing about it, you are going to pay for it.
Yes. What we should do is sit back and enjoy the higher farm productivity, lowered heating costs, reduced tornado damage, new shipping routes, etc. Or we could stupidly waste money trying to stop the earth from warming.
When it comes to scientists that receive some sort of federal grants, subsidies or paychecks, I’d bet the number is closer to 100%.
Good points.
Most people will also agree that humans cause SOME climate change.
Deforestation, for instance, will over time drastically reduce rainfall in a region.
The real question, then, is not whether climate change is occurring (as you point out, that is the nature of climate) or whether it is partially man-caused (of course it is).
The real questions are to what extent climate change is man-caused, how much the proposed solutions can do to correct or prevent the “problem,” and how much the cure costs relative to the disease.
Nobody much wants to talk about these common-sense issues. Instead we tend to have barren discussions between “the sky is falling” people and the “nothing to see here” folks. As if the “problem” has by definition a binary solution set.
micro vs macro climate
on a GLOBAL scale there is no human caused change.
algore and his harvard D (do people realize how hard it is to get a D at harvard?) might as well say seasons are caused by humans.
Neither you nor anyone else can prove this.
You are claiming ZERO effect of human activity on global climate. This is just about as ludicrous as the "sky is falling" boys.
Not 1% of the change can conceivably be due to human activity?
Anywho, humans are found throughout the earth. It is reasonable to assume that the accumulation of man-caused regional climate change adds up to global climate change.
Thank you for providing a classic example of the binary argument I mentioned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.