“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.
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.
2. Why do assume that global warming (if it occurs) is bad? You liken it to a child eating poison, but no one can offer any actual harm done by (1) increased CO2 in the air by 30% or (2) increased temps by 2-3 degrees? NO ONE can show that EITHER can be solved increasing taxes and destroying America’s economy.
3. The BILLIONS of people forced by worse economic conditions, starvation, cold, and no transportation through YOUR ASSUMPTION of scaremongering and anti-capitalistic hatred is directly due to YOUR actions promoting AGW. What is YOUR motive to condemn these people to an impoverished life and early death?
4. Increased crop gains and increased forest growth and increased coral growth of 16 - 30% are NOW being proved by the increase in CO2 - and the 1/2 of one degree warmer climate. Please show ANY benefit to forcing the disaster that is Kyoto down the world's throat.
5. Temp's increased by 1/2 of 1 degree over a 27 year period. Over the next ten year period, temps have NOT changed. What trend is correct about global warming?