Leaked Emails Rock the Global Warming Debate

[|Lucid|]

But you're killing it with no intended effect. You're killing it just to kill it. Killing the coal industry in the U.S, will have absolutely zero effect on global warming, so why are you doing it? According to you, you're sacrificing them for the greater good. But the problem with your argument is that no greater good could possibly be achieved. So in reality, you're going to kill the coal industry in order to make yourself feel better about things.  

 

Killing the coal industry all by itself? Nope... But what we come up with to take it's place might.  It also may be the answer to the economy problem as well.  The thing is, we won't come up with this answer until we make a serious commitment to get off of coal.  Right now, it's too easy and too many people are making money off it for any change to happen.

 

The same thing can be said for all fossil fuels.

 

Likely sooner rather than later, everyone will be needing to find a solution to this problem. And I for one would like for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of the solutions so we can sell them to everyone else.

 

You say China doesn't want to get off fossil fuels?  Well, they may change thier minds when their coastal cities begin flooding.

[Madieu Superstar]

 

Killing the coal industry all by itself? Nope... But what we come up with to take it's place might.  It also may be the answer to the economy problem as well.  The thing is, we won't come up with this answer until we make a serious commitment to get off of coal.  Right now, it's too easy and too many people are making money off it for any change to happen.

 

The same thing can be said for all fossil fuels.

 

Likely sooner rather than later, everyone will be needing to find a solution to this problem. And I for one would like for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of the solutions so we can sell them to everyone else.

 

You say China doesn't want to get off fossil fuels?  Well, they may change thier minds when their coastal cities begin flooding.

I would say keep waiting on that flooding to occur. When it happens, let me know. 

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970

[|Lucid|]

I would say keep waiting on that flooding to occur. When it happens, let me know. 

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/13-worst-predictions-made-earth-day-1970

 

It's happening already

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winter-floods-linked-to-global-warming/

 

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/4020/20121113/venice-flooding-global-warming-blame-photos.htm

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-pacific-islands-flood-a-climate-driven-exodus/

 

That took 30 sec's of googling...

[mullichicken25]

 
Killing the coal industry all by itself? Nope... But what we come up with to take it's place might.  It also may be the answer to the economy problem as well.  The thing is, we won't come up with this answer until we make a serious commitment to get off of coal.  Right now, it's too easy and too many people are making money off it for any change to happen.
 
The same thing can be said for all fossil fuels.
 
Likely sooner rather than later, everyone will be needing to find a solution to this problem. And I for one would like for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of the solutions so we can sell them to everyone else.
 
You say China doesn't want to get off fossil fuels?  Well, they may change thier minds when their coastal cities begin flooding.

Great post.

Ignorantly assuming a problem is unsolvable is foolish and shortsighted. Humans have a history filled with tremendous technological achievement and innovation. There's no reason to think there couldn't be an "energy" revolution in this world along the lines of the digital and industrial revolutions in the past.

I have no doubt that such a revolution would/will arise organically once the effects of climate change are significant and universally undeniable, however, I'd much rather there be an honest effort to get started before that day comes for obvious reasons.

[Madieu Superstar]

Seems like everything is caused by global warming:

 

Allergies:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/blame-climate-change-for-your-terrible-seasonal-allergies.html

 

Drought:

http://sfist.com/2014/04/25/california_drought_caused_by_climat.php

 

Tornadoes:

http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/374496/tornadoes-extreme-weather-and-climate-change

 

Rape:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape

 

Snow Storms:

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/global-warming-janus-snow

 

Gun Violence:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/left-wing-nut-global-warming-is-driving-up-gun-violence-in-chicago/

 

Depression:

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/climate_change_could_cause_depression_and_anxiety_says_study_partner/

 

Prostitution:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex

 

Alzheimer's:

http://www.itnonline.com/content/global-warming-and-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease

 

Health of Homeless:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704276/

 

HIV:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059969539

 

Mental Illness & Cancer:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/04/global-warming-causes-mental-illness-cancer/

 

Terrorism:

http://cdn.defenseone.com/defenseone/interstitial.html?v=2.1.1&rf=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseone.com%2Fideas%2F2014%2F05%2Fhow-climate-change-affects-terrorism%2F84175%2F

 

Poverty:

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/climatechange/suffering-the-science-case-studies

 

Typhoons:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177111/yes-typhoon-haiyan-was-caused-climate-change

 

Hurricanes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html

 

War:

http://www.nationofchange.org/new-study-suggests-climate-change-cause-war-1314289484

 

Influenza:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/29/1510991/climate-change-and-the-flu-warm-winters-followed-by-severe-flu-seasons/

 

Cold Weather:

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/

 

Burglary:

http://grist.org/list/climate-change-is-going-to-cause-1-3-million-extra-burglaries-before-2099/

 

Murder:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/increased_murder_and_war_linked_to_climate_change/

 

Acne:

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/13657/global-warming-causes-acne/greg-pollowitz

 

STD's:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/03/it-has-begun-junk-scientists-claim-global-warming-causes-stds/

 

Earthquakes:

http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/scientists-earthquakes-can-be-caused-by-global-warming/

 

Volcanoes:

http://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html

 

Chocolate Shortage:

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3606-climate-change-could-cause-chocolate-shortage

 

Bad Beer:

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-global-warming-will-affect-your-beer

 

Car Accidents:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/300-accidents-caused-by-global-warming.html

 

Bad Economies:

http://coastalcare.org/2014/03/climate-change-will-slow-economies-cause-irreversible-damage-un-report/

 

Less Pirates:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

 

Heroin Addiction:

http://www.greenbang.com/climate-change-causes-heroin-addiction_11024.html

 

UFO Sightings:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2261941/British-UFO-sightings-at-bizarre-levels.html

 

Cougar Attacks:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c5e6120a-be10-4497-8f32-cd8585e5ca33&k=51234

 

I think you get the idea...

[Madieu Superstar]

Great post.

Ignorantly assuming a problem is unsolvable is foolish and shortsighted. Humans have a history filled with tremendous technological achievement and innovation. There's no reason to think there couldn't be an "energy" revolution in this world along the lines of the digital and industrial revolutions in the past.

I have no doubt that such a revolution would/will arise organically once the effects of climate change are significant and universally undeniable, however, I'd much rather there be an honest effort to get started before that day comes for obvious reasons.

So you want a symbolic gesture of action? Like I said, there is nothing you can do to stop "global warming" without a worldwide consensus, so anything you would do is merely for the optics. I'd rather we wait for an actual, realistic, effective solution to emerge. 

 

You can equate it to football, you don't make coaching or personnel moves, simply to make them. You do it because it will have a direct positive effect on your team. When that solution emerges, let me know. 

[|Lucid|]

So you want a symbolic gesture of action? Like I said, there is nothing you can do to stop "global warming" without a worldwide consensus, so anything you would do is merely for the optics. I'd rather we wait for an actual, realistic, effective solution to emerge. 

 

You can equate it to football, you don't make coaching or personnel moves, simply to make them. You do it because it will have a direct positive effect on your team. When that solution emerges, let me know. 

 

Right.. I mean wasn't it great how the "mission to the moon" just emerged.. Or the Polio vaccine.. Or the Internet.. Or the highway system...

 

I could go on.  But the general point is that these achievements took a unified determination to get them done.  The government had a big role in getting it there.  Just sitting around bickering about whether there is even a problem at all is is never going to produce this solution you speak of.

 

The only way this gets fixed is by everyone pulling together to make it happen, and likely government getting involved to help push it along.

[Madieu Superstar]

 

Right.. I mean wasn't it great how the "mission to the moon" just emerged.. Or the Polio vaccine.. Or the Internet.. Or the highway system...

 

I could go on.  But the general point is that these achievements took a unified determination to get them done.  The government had a big role in getting it there.  Just sitting around bickering about whether there is even a problem at all is is never going to produce this solution you speak of.

 

The only way this gets fixed is by everyone pulling together to make it happen, and likely government getting involved to help push it along.

In regards to the "man on the moon" scenario, when you show me an actual solution, or even progress towards one, let me know. I can tell you though that a carbon tax (which has been proposed by the white house) will do nothing but take money out of the people's wallets. Again, it's global warming, not U.S. warming. 

 

In terms of investing heavily into solving this "epidemic", I forward you to the predictions we were hearing from world-renowned biologists as far back as 50-60 years ago. According to them, we should all be starving in the streets by now. Sometimes, the smartest people in the room are incorrect. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

[|Lucid|]

In regards to the "man on the moon" scenario, when you show me an actual solution, or even progress towards one, let me know. I can tell you though that a carbon tax (which has been proposed by the white house) will do nothing but take money out of the people's wallets. Again, it's global warming, not U.S. warming. 

 

In terms of investing heavily into solving this "epidemic", I forward you to the predictions we were hearing from world-renowned biologists as far back as 50-60 years ago. According to them, we should all be starving in the streets by now. Sometimes, the smartest people in the room are incorrect. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

 

 

They weren't "wrong", their models weren't exactly accurate as far as time scale, but a lot of what they were predicting is starting to come to fruition.  The science has come a long way since then, and computers in general, not to mention the algorithm's have come even farther.

 

Also, the reason calling it "global warming" can be confusing to some people is because the "warming" part of Global Warming refers to a raising of average global temperature, not regional or local temperatures.  If you take some time to understand what "Climate Change" really means you would understand that it's not contradictory at all to have a bitter winter in some place, or record snowfall in others.. In fact, with a little research you would understand that this kind of thing is part of the whole thing when you take into count de-salinization and it's affect on ocean currents "like the gulf stream" and thus it's effect on ocean temperatures, and that affect on the jet stream.

[CincyInDC]

 

 

...  If you take some time to understand what "Climate Change" really means ... with a little research you would understand that ...

 

Nope.  I don't see that happening.

[mullichicken25]

So you want a symbolic gesture of action? 

 

 

Negative. I think I can speak for most rational people when i say that i want our country to start taking real steps toward developing more sustainable energy technologies through both direct funding of development efforts and incentivizing development in the private sector. 

 

Like I said, there is nothing you can do to stop "global warming" without a worldwide consensus, so anything you would do is merely for the optics. I'd rather we wait for an actual, realistic, effective solution to emerge. 

 

When that solution emerges, let me know. 

 

Well buddy, i don't know what to tell you. If you plan is to sit and wait until a full proof solution spontaneously materializes out of thin air, or some guy alone in his garage unlocks the code to nuclear fusion, you're going to waiting for a long fucking time.

 

Real progress, especially an undertaking as massive as revolutionizing of the way power is generated, stored, transferred, and utilized on this planet, takes years upon years of concentrated and dedicated effort. Sure, we could wait until the incentive to make said progress comes in the form of pure desperation, but why not start now? We're lucky to have a little foresight in this matter, and we'd be foolish not to use it to our advantage. 

[|Lucid|]

 

Sometimes, the smartest people in the room are incorrect. 

 

Usually nothing happens when you play Russian Rhoulette,

 

If I have a substance in my hand that 97% of the worlds smartest chemists tell me is going to explode soon, I'm not going to wait to see if it starts to get warm before I do something about it just because it's inconveneint and they might be wrong.

[Jamie_B]

First, from what I gather the global consensus on global warming is not that we're in immediate risk of catastrophic disaster. Rather, the current energy practices are irresponsible thus changes need to start being implemented now to work towards a more sustainable solution for the future.

As far as the WV situation, the answer is yes. Industries rise and fall, populations prosper and flounder and at the end of the day shit happens. It would be unfortunate, and I would imagine most people wouldn't be quite as fucked as you're implying, but if it's part of the collateral damage from working towards a global good I could live with it.

I work in the defense industry. I design weapons and ammunition that have no other application or use in this planet besides war. If there were a chance to eliminate war or even just America's involvement, at the expense of my career, I'd sign up in a fucking heartbeat.

The little guy gets fucked all the time, and very often it's an injustice. However, every now and then it's an unfortunate price to pay for genuine progress.

 

 

I work in the intelligence industry, I would be over the moon if the government decided that we were going to spend that money on building better healthcare software instead, that's the kind of work I really want to be doing.

[Madieu Superstar]

 

 

Negative. I think I can speak for most rational people when i say that i want our country to start taking real steps toward developing more sustainable energy technologies through both direct funding of development efforts and incentivizing development in the private sector. 

 

 

Well buddy, i don't know what to tell you. If you plan is to sit and wait until a full proof solution spontaneously materializes out of thin air, or some guy alone in his garage unlocks the code to nuclear fusion, you're going to waiting for a long fucking time.

 

Real progress, especially an undertaking as massive as revolutionizing of the way power is generated, stored, transferred, and utilized on this planet, takes years upon years of concentrated and dedicated effort. Sure, we could wait until the incentive to make said progress comes in the form of pure desperation, but why not start now? We're lucky to have a little foresight in this matter, and we'd be foolish not to use it to our advantage. 

And how does a carbon tax figure into that?

 

 

You know and I know that it will have absolutely no effect on "global warming" period. So if it can't have any effect, where does the money go? Basically its a shakedown of an entire industry. I don't know about you, but I have absolutely zero faith that this money raised through taxation will be spent effectively to combat "global warming". My best guess, it will go to cronies of higher-ups in the government to be wasted. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/20/white-house-preps-carbon-tax-lets-call-it-obamaair/

[Jamie_B]

Also the notion that industry dies and people lose jobs and as such need refitted for new industries (ie: training and education) is EXACTLY the purpose of having a social safety net.

[Jamie_B]

Incorrect. Unless you have A SOLUTION, you do nothing. We keep going in circles here. What is the point of taking action if doesn't achieve any intended effect? You're throwing complete malarkey out there. "You solve problems by resolving first to solve them". That's crap. There is no solution and there won't be a solution until you get a global consensus, which you never will (at least not in our lifetimes). You can take a whole bunch of action, and it will look really nice to someone who doesn't know anything, but in reality, it achieves nothing. Don't waste time, resources, and money with no goal to achieve any intended effect. 

 

 

No it's not crap, you can't determine if you have a solution that will work until you try to find out if it works and when it doesnt work it gives you the data to know what doesnt work so that you can use it in determining a solution that will work. That's part of investment.

[mullichicken25]

And how does a carbon tax figure into that?

 

 

You know and I know that it will have absolutely no effect on "global warming" period. So if it can't have any effect, where does the money go? Basically its a shakedown of an entire industry. I don't know about you, but I have absolutely zero faith that this money raised through taxation will be spent effectively to combat "global warming". My best guess, it will go to cronies of higher-ups in the government to be wasted. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/20/white-house-preps-carbon-tax-lets-call-it-obamaair/

I have made precisely 0 comments regarding a carbon tax, of which I do not know any specifics.

 

The debate about the specific mechanisms through which the government can incentivize and even directly fund sustainable energy development is a healthy one. However, the debate about whether to bother doing anything (the one we were having) is ludicrous.

[|Lucid|]

And how does a carbon tax figure into that?

 

 

You know and I know that it will have absolutely no effect on "global warming" period. So if it can't have any effect, where does the money go? Basically its a shakedown of an entire industry. I don't know about you, but I have absolutely zero faith that this money raised through taxation will be spent effectively to combat "global warming". My best guess, it will go to cronies of higher-ups in the government to be wasted. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/20/white-house-preps-carbon-tax-lets-call-it-obamaair/

 

I didn't realize this was a discussion about carbon taxes, or whether we should set up an ambiguous "global warming tax".. No wonder it seems so confusing.

I have made precisely 0 comments regarding a carbon tax, of which I do not know any specifics.

 

The debate about the specific mechanisms through which the government can incentivize and even directly fund sustainable energy development is a healthy one. However, the debate about whether to bother doing anything (the one we were having) is ludicrous.

 

Yeah, this.

[Madieu Superstar]

 

Usually nothing happens when you play Russian Rhoulette,

 

If I have a substance in my hand that 97% of the worlds smartest chemists tell me is going to explode soon, I'm not going to wait to see if it starts to get warm before I do something about it just because it's inconveneint and they might be wrong.

These same smartest biologists from Stanford and Harvard predicted we would all be starving in the streets from an over-abundance of nitrogen in the atmosphere by now. They were wrong. There's plenty of world-renowned scientists who don't believe in it (or think its exaggerated), so what? My best practical guess: it's somewhere in between. There probably is global warming, but its not nearly as catastrophic as some may lead us to believe. Just look at the links I posted above. Do you actually think global warming causes all of those ridiculous things? Of course not, but people are simply throwing shit at the wall hoping it will stick. Where is the credibility in that?

[|Lucid|]

These same smartest biologists from Stanford and Harvard predicted we would all be starving in the streets from an over-abundance of nitrogen in the atmosphere by now. They were wrong. There's plenty of world-renowned scientists who don't believe in it (or think its exaggerated), so what? My best practical guess: it's somewhere in between. There probably is global warming, but its not nearly as catastrophic as some may lead us to believe. Just look at the links I posted above. Do you actually think global warming causes all of those ridiculous things? Of course not, but people are simply throwing shit at the wall hoping it will stick. Where is the credibility in that?

 

If you consider less than 5% "plenty".. And if you remove those scientists who are directly affiliated with the energy industry in some way that number gets much closer to 0.  But we should all just ignore the OVERWHELMING consensus from independent scientists from the ENTIRE PLANET because FOX news and Peabody Energy Corp tells us that the coal miners will starve if we try to do something about it.

[mullichicken25]

These same smartest biologists from Stanford and Harvard predicted we would all be starving in the streets from an over-abundance of nitrogen in the atmosphere by now. They were wrong. 

First of all, biologists are not the authority on climate change. There is a field, climatology, that is the specific study of climate. Not to discredit biologists, but their word is far from gospel in this debate. For instance, I'm an engineer, and i'd say that i have a greater knowledge of physics and chemistry than most people, but that doesn't make me any kind of authority on, say,  planetary motion or electron bonding.

 

Secondly, what you're essentially doing here is picking out an error that is minuscule in the scheme of things (time scale of events) and discrediting the entire body of work. That's not on quite the same level as being the "grammar police" but its not too far off either. 

 

There's plenty of world-renowned scientists who don't believe in it (or think its exaggerated), so what? 

There's plenty in terms of number of people. Yeah I'm sure they'd fill a pretty big room. But in terms of percentage of the scientific community and their peers? No, there aren't plenty of them. More accurately, there's a handful.

 

My best practical guess: it's somewhere in between. There probably is global warming, but its not nearly as catastrophic as some may lead us to believe.

You're best guess is worth exactly dog shit in this discussion. As is mine. As is anyone else's reading this. That's why I defer to the larger scientific community on issues i don't fully understand.

 

Just look at the links I posted above. Do you actually think global warming causes all of those ridiculous things? Of course not, but people are simply throwing shit at the wall hoping it will stick. Where is the credibility in that?

There probably is none, and while i didn't bother to click on any of those links, i can safely assume that they are examples of half-assed psuedo-science bullshit "published" for shock value, as opposed to legitimate peer-reviewed research published in a scientific journal. There is a very clear line between real science and bullshit, and trying to make judgements on former based on the latter won't get you very far.

[Madieu Superstar]

First of all, biologists are not the authority on climate change. There is a field, climatology, that is the specific study of climate. Not to discredit biologists, but their word is far from gospel in this debate. For instance, I'm an engineer, and i'd say that i have a greater knowledge of physics and chemistry than most people, but that doesn't make me any kind of authority on, say,  planetary motion or electron bonding.

 

Secondly, what you're essentially doing here is picking out an error that is minuscule in the scheme of things (time scale of events) and discrediting the entire body of work. That's not on quite the same level as being the "grammar police" but its not too far off either. 

 

There's plenty in terms of number of people. Yeah I'm sure they'd fill a pretty big room. But in terms of percentage of the scientific community and their peers? No, there aren't plenty of them. More accurately, there's a handful.

 

You're best guess is worth exactly dog shit in this discussion. As is mine. As is anyone else's reading this. That's why I defer to the larger scientific community on issues i don't fully understand.

 

There probably is none, and while i didn't bother to click on any of those links, i can safely assume that they are examples of half-assed psuedo-science bullshit "published" for shock value, as opposed to legitimate peer-reviewed research published in a scientific journal. There is a very clear line between real science and bullshit, and trying to make judgements on former based on the latter won't get you very far.

Nonsense. I'm pointing out that just because someone has a title from a supposed" prestigious university, it doesn't turn them into a soothsayer. Scientists from the 70's actually believed we would all be dead by now from Nitrogen.

 

There's plenty in terms of number of people. Yeah I'm sure they'd fill a pretty big room. But in terms of percentage of the scientific community and their peers? No, there aren't plenty of them. More accurately, there's a handful.

 

Please read this when you have time. I hate that 97% figure.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

[|Lucid|]

Nonsense. I'm pointing out that just because someone has a title from a supposed" prestigious university, it doesn't turn them into a soothsayer. Scientists from the 70's actually believed we would all be dead by now from Nitrogen.

 

Please read this when you have time. I hate that 97% figure.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

This is an op-ed piece by a "contributor" to the Forbes web site.  You will notice all of his "Op Ed" pieces are not only anti-global warming, but also anti alternative energy. He also just so happens to work for the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a conservative "Think Tank" which focuses on debunking global warming claims.

 

How is it that I knew when I read this guy's article that if I looked I would find a link to energy companies?

 

 

The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources....

....Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.^[51]Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.^[23]

^....

In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak (see below) and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year.  The shortfall led to the Illinois coal lobby sponsoring the institute's May 2012 climate conference – the "first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry".

 

 

 

Here is an article which describes the way these results for the study on scientific papers concerning global warming were obtained..

 

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/05/16/3759876.htm

[mullichicken25]

Nonsense.

 

Thank you for providing this abstract at the front of your post. It saved my the millisecond in which i would have considered that you actually read anything i wrote

 

Nonsense. I'm pointing out that just because someone has a title from a supposed" prestigious university, it doesn't turn them into a soothsayer. Scientists from the 70's actually believed we would all be dead by now from Nitrogen.

 

Please read this when you have time. I hate that 97% figure.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

You're missing the point. No one is claiming that a degree from a prestigious university means someone is an expert or infallible. If a guy with an english degree from a community college could author a paper on climate change that makes it through the peer-review process and get's the scientific communities stamp of a approval to be published in a reputable journal it would be perfectly credible.

 

If, at the end of the day, your position is, "These guys, in a semi-related field, 40 years ago, were a little bit wrong about something, so therefore no one really knows anything at all and everything else that's been said in the last 40 years is subject to my completely baseless opinion" then i don't know what to tell you.

[Jamie_B]

 

This is an op-ed piece by a "contributor" to the Forbes web site.  You will notice all of his "Op Ed" pieces are not only anti-global warming, but also anti alternative energy. He also just so happens to work for the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a conservative "Think Tank" which focuses on debunking global warming claims.

 

How is it that I knew when I read this guy's article that if I looked I would find a link to energy companies?

 

 

 

 

Here is an article which describes the way these results were obtained..

 

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/05/16/3759876.htm

 

 

I remember when MS wanted to debunk my studies by EPI because they got money from unions, so I'm just gonna watch the response to this post.