Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Those pesky global warming science skeptics keep speaking out
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, June 14, 2006

For some reason they just won't accept the fact that man has played a significant role even though we all know this is now consensus, er, settled science.

Read the whole thing.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

(sigh) Still can’t keep straight what is consensus and what is broadly accepted, can you? This is a bit like citing an area of dispute among evolutionary scientists and claiming that there’s no longer a consensus on evolution.
Written By: Jon Henke
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

To be fair, I have heard this argument for several years.
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
The consensus in physics in the late 1890s (led by Rutherford, the pre-eminent scientist of his era) was that the sun would burn out in 50,000-60,000 years.

I do think there is rather strong consensus that global climate changes over billions of years without the need for anthropogenic causation.
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
No no no. The consensus is the the earth is flat, sits on the back of a giant turtle, and is the center of the universe.
Written By: Church
URL: http://
And in case anyone wants to know what the turtle is standing on.
Research indicates it’s turtles....all the way down.....

Written By: looker
URL: http://
Has Pratchett spoofed global warming yet?

Oh, Jon.

Broadly accepted. Consensus. That’s a distinction without a difference.

Yours, TPD, ml, msl, & pfpp
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I read Al’s first book, and it reminded me of a Lyndon Larouche television commercial(1/2 hour or more) that he made when he ran for president. I see no reason to change my evaluation of Al; he and LaRouche are both conspiracy nuts, but Al dresses better. Or maybe the Queen of England is causing global warming in order to boost opium poppy production.
My theory of the cause of global warming is that it is caused by the excessive production of aluminum, which is very energy intensive. The excessive production is caused by a great demand for aluminum foil which is used, naturally, for the aluminum foil hats worn by the global warming set. Appropriately circular, don’t you think?

Written By: timactual
URL: http://
(sigh) Still can’t keep straight what is consensus and what is broadly accepted, can you? This is a bit like citing an area of dispute among evolutionary scientists and claiming that there’s no longer a consensus on evolution.
Bull. They just recently reconciled the satallite data and ground data, so we can now say that we have been having global warming over the last 25 years. The cause is still unverified theory.
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If you’re gonna be on the wrong side of science, history, and just plain common sense, I hope you’re at least getting paid. All the other flat-earthers are. You should too.
Join us in the next comment section and answer the "gastank" problem then. If it’s all matter of science, history and common sense it should be a snap for you.
Written By: McQ
Keep it up.

Global Warming Fanaticism is the new reason that government should run your life.

Drudge has a link to a good debunking.

And it is all about political power, not science.
Written By: AMS
Ooops. I am a fool. I linked the same story as the post.
Written By: AMS
Quoted from the CFP link..."Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?" "

If this is true then I would think there is plenty of room to dipsute anthropogenic climate forcing through CO2 emissions, which, I believe, is the current bugaboo in the debate.
Written By: Metzger
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks