Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

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

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
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
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
AGW Skeptics Meet
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, March 04, 2008

And, apparently, roast Al Gore. To be expected, I guess (although viewing a film by Glenn Beck isn't a particularly good answer to the pot shots at Gore's film).

The most important quote to come out of the meeting Monday in New York, which was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, was that of Fred Singer:
"Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled," said Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

"Proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided. Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive," he said.
An excellent statement of the skeptic's argument. Frankly I think everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and calmly revisit all the science on this subject, and include the skeptics in this examination as well. My guess is that won't happen because of the vested interests of those pushing the AGW theory (and that is all it is, btw).

In the meantime, the skeptics (heretics, "nazis", whatever we're being called today) need to keep themselves and their theories in the public eye. Otherwise, costly decisions are going to be made which, in my opinion, won't effect climate change in the least, but which could lead to economic consequences which could prove devastating to a good portion of the globe. The skeptics must keep this controversy visible and must demand a seat at the table if this is to be averted. The conference in NY is a good step in that direction.

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Congress has an excuse to tax gasoline and NASA has found a purpose to justify their existance.

They won’t give up AGW that easily.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
AGW is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Its predicted potential effects do not even rise to that level, being mere speculation. A theory is backed by repeatable experiments, testable predictions, and falsifiable premises. AGW so far has none of those.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Of course, if "being in the public eye" means that the public sees "reporting" like this WaPo piece, then it’s better if the MSM stay away from the conference.

Would that the MSM were as skeptical of WARMongerers as they are of the skeptics.
 
Written By: dicentra
URL: http://dicentrasgarden.blogspot.com
Yeah. All those "scientists" have are theories and hypotheses, what do they actually KNOW. "Theory of evolution" ... they’re just guessing and pulling stuff out of you know where. Dinosaurs are millions of years old?!?! Prove it. Have you ever meet anybody who claims to have seen one?. There’s now WAY that I came from a lower life form. Electrons and quantum physics .. garbage! I’ve never seen a neutron, or a proton, or an electron. Come on scientist, prove to me they exist ..directly. You can’t, can you.

Look, just because chemistry works sometimes in you pretty laboratories, doesn’t mean it works out here in the real world, with real people. Just because these reactions work in lab:
CFCl3 + hν → CFCl2 + Cl
Cl + O3 → ClO + O2
ClO + O → Cl + O2
with a net reaction of O3 + O → 2 O2 and thus a decrease in ozone, that doesn’t mean it’s what happens in what we call the "real world".

And don’t try to tell me that your NASA probes have measured the depletion. You have a vested interested in the depletion being there, and even if it is there those "equations" and "experiments" (se above) you do don’t mean that it wouldn’t be happening anyway ..if it were even happening .... which it’s NOT.

As for what the "scientists" say, go here and have a laugh if you can stomach it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
 
Written By: rd
URL: http://
The proper way to deal with AGW believers is to say ..
If you think we should have cleaner cars and factories, tell me you are for cleaner cars and factories, but please leave the AGW stuff at the door.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
As for what the "scientists" say, go here and have a laugh if you can stomach it:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
ooooooooooooooo! Science stuff! oooooooooooooooooo!
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
If you can stomach it - looks like we’re to bow to consensus - even though you can’t (Mr Scientist) prove that CO2 forcing is causing warming and even though the article you cite as justification for your AGW rant admits ’what to do about climate change is still open’.

But don’t let the need to prove it in a laboratory before we’ll accept it stop you from trotting out your nice little equations as ’proof’ of something. Don’t let the fact that you don’t know ’what to do’ stop you from trying to force us into ’doing something’.

Take heed of the first line of the 2nd to the last paragraph. Those of us who want more proof before we tilt our economy upside down for no good reason want to hand something that works to our grandchildren and we think the science ought to be a little more sciency first.

Scientific consensus /= scientific proof.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Frankly I think everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and calmly revisit all the science on this subject, and include the skeptics in this examination as well.
I agree, but it would help if the skeptics could avoid the most obvious shills and especially the ones who who use bad science.

I understand that all scientists are funded, so the money can always be used to claim impartiality, but there are some really clumsy shills out there on the skeptic side, and they seem to be helping the "cause" of AGW more than anything.
evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Its predicted potential effects do not even rise to that level, being mere speculation. A theory is backed by repeatable experiments, testable predictions, and falsifiable premises. Evolution so far has none of those.
I thought that sounded familiar.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
As long as you’re gonna talk shills Cap, you ought, in fairness, to mention Mr Carbon Credits, you know, the one that won the Nobel, shouldn’t you?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This year we could have used some of that GW.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of the claims of anthropogenic climate change and then proceeded to waste trillions of dollars that they will have to repay in the name of "playing it safe".
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Singer’s report
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I loved this comment from American Spectator ..
The goodie bags at registration contained a copy of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for example, to allow attendees to familiarize themselves with the other side’s arguments before viewing the accompanying DVD The Great Global Warming Swindle. Try to imagine Al Gore encouraging the same level of rigorous pro- and con- study at one of his lectures. It’s unthinkable.
 
Written By: Neo
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.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider