Last nails in the man made global warming coffin

[B. Max]

Pack up the desks and turn out the lights at the IPCC, it's time for everyone to fall off the man made global warming band wagon.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...8&Issue_id=

[Argus]

Pack up the desks and turn out the lights at the IPCC, it's time for everyone to fall off the man made global warming band wagon.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...8&Issue_id=

They'll pay as much attention to it as they did to this - from three years ago Temperatures much warmer in Middle Ages

[shoggoth]

What is there to pay attention to? I notice Morano totally misrepresents the paper by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. It actually supports the solar forcing levels used by climate models and the ones in the latest IPCC report. To imply that it is an "inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming" is just nonsense.

A lot more nonsense exists in the article than just that (the Bob Carter "global warming stopped in 1998" nonsense argument is rehashed too), but this is just a taster. The article is good old fashioned propaganda.

Edited August 26, 2007 by shoggoth

[jawapunk]

Any so called "scientific " study funded by the US government/ corporate lobbyist is circumspect. They have too much at stake to have a non-biased opinion. I would definitely take these "findings" with a grain of salt. There have been numerous scientists come forward revealing the pressure they felt from the W.H. in regards to publishing findings that didn't mesh well with the admisitrations' goals/ideals/business interests.

Science that is corporately sponsored is very often not necessarily pure scientific study at all. I would try to look at this objectively and see what both sides of this argument have to lose/gain. Who is doing the pushing and why? I can say that corporate lobbyists would back any research that was going to have the "findings" that this study gathered.

And why?

Because the cost of restructuring production and emissions for inumerable industries is immense. The bottom line is, if a corporation can spend 10 million to sponsor a study or lobby a senator to find/vote in their favour, rather than spend 100 million making changes to their companies infrastructure to meet a greener ideal, then that is exactly what they'll do.

I think it is naive to think that we are not having a negative impact on our environment. I am not sure what evidence people are looking for before they decide it may be the right thing to encourage a more conscientious policy in regards to our environment/air/water etc etc. I guess some will take the opposite stance in an argument just for the point of having an argument, no matter how foolish or immoral that stance may be.