|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
Posted on 03/04/2008 1:56:11 PM PST by Delacon
junk science ping...
Ping
On the other side are global warming fearmongers, including UK science advisor Sir David King and his predecessor Robert May (now Lord May), and of course Al Gore, former vice president of the U.S.
Fearmongers!! OMG!
In spite of increasing pressures to join Kyoto and adopt emission limits on carbon dioxide, President George W. Bush in the United States has resisted – so far.
(lip service only , W!!)
We have time to scan the executive summary. Does the Doctor claim the whole 50 pages are executive summary? I would fire him if he did.
pass it on
Report #1 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Heartland Institute ^ | March 3, 2008 | Joseph Bast
Posted on 03/04/2008 4:19:39 PM EST by Delacon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1980370/posts
Report #2 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
The Heartland Institute ^ | March 3, 2008 | Joseph L. Bast
Posted on 03/04/2008 4:39:17 PM EST by Delacon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980381/posts
Who needs to read 50 pages? We have CONSENSUS! Now, shut up and go away before we yank your funding.
“Climate realism” A term I could get used to...
According to Al Gore, there is no more debate, so why bother?
Each of us should send the pdf link to everyone on our email lists and tell them not to forget to share. :) Thats what I’m doing. Thanks for posting it. bttt
“Our imperfect understanding of
the causes and consequences of climate change
means the science is far from settled. This, in
turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate
change by reducing GH gas emissions are
premature and misguided.”
First sentence is dead-on. Second sentence is extraordinarily illogical. Whenever an understanding of a potential causal link is uncertain, any action to mitigate the potential effects is misguided? A child eats cashews and almost dies. The doctor says, the cashews might have had nothing to do with the outbreak. Does the parent say great, no precautions necessary? Frankly, with that kind of logic, its hard to read on. But I did. There are some really good points. The text is one-sided as you would expect given the financial backing of the foundation. It is a good counter-argument to much of the “consensus view.” It’s sort of like Al Gore. A little too much advocacy and hyperbole; no attempt to reconcile a lot of possibilities which we do not yet fully comprehend.
This should be obvious. Unfortunately, millions of people get their science information from the media.
Unfortunately, all three remaining candidates are global warming whackos.
|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
One page, single sided. If I need more info I will give a whistle. Busy execs need to know if it is change or hope one or the other or some combination.
Latest Weather Channel Headline: 03-04-08
GORE’S GLOBAL FLATULENCE HAS PRODUCED A PDF LINK!
But I thought they were in favor of change.
I don’t think that is a fair analogy. A better analogy is you take what you think is your perfectly healthy child in for a routine checkup and the doctor says that your child is in danger of dying in 20 years if he doesn’t get a medical procedure done NOW and the procedure will bankrupt you. Wouldn’t you want a second opinion? Wouldn’t you ask for further testing? Whenever an understanding of a potential causal link is uncertain, any action to mitigate the potential effects is misguided? Hell yes when the action to mitigate actually may do more harm than good.
“The text is one-sided as you would expect given the financial backing of the foundation. It is a good counter-argument to much of the “consensus view.”
From the outset they proclaimed that they were meeting to give an alternative pov to believers in man made global warming and to show that there is no consensus. Nothing shadowy or underhanded there. Your jab at their financial backing is fine as far as it goes. Somebody tell me why nobody in the media attacks the IPCC that practically started the global warming scare whose backing is the UN.
“It’s sort of like Al Gore. A little too much advocacy and hyperbole; no attempt to reconcile a lot of possibilities which we do not yet fully comprehend.”
After a decade of Al Gore and global warming alarmists attacking anyone that disagrees with them I think they have earned a right to a little advocacy and hyperbole as you call it. In fact, the debate has been so one sided for so long, the debate needs a LOT of hyperbole and advocacy if we are going to get anywhere near to balanced and evenhanded debate over climate change. Any timidity would simply be shouted down.
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.