Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Norbert, Nov 11, 2009.
YouTube - Sen. Kerry Grills AEI's Ken Green Over Climate Bill
What is it with these anti global warming people picking noble sounding last names like "Green". And the shirt he's wearing is colored green as well. This Kenneth "Green" guy is full of s**t, he is funded by ExxonMobil. Here is info about AEI and who funds it.
Edit: Just noticed he also got DNA helix on his tie. Has anyone ever seen a credible scientist dress like that?
but they don't often talk like that.
Wonder what Dr. Green is a doctor of.
He sure holds some interesting views: people must be moved from disaster-prone areas, electricity markets deregulated, water supply privatized ... oh my.
Kenneth P. Green, D.Env. Environmental Science and Engineering, Expert Reviewer, IPCC
Maybe Sen. Kerry should look a little bit harder...
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Here is some stuff from that blog:
* The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
* The Anti "Green" Energy Resource
* The Anti Marijuana Resource
* The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource
* Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
* Firefox Myths
Seriously Poptech, take a hike.
The title of this list says: "Supporting Skeptism". It is always good to be skeptical, that argument goes both ways. There is not actually any need to provide additional reasons to be skeptical. One should be so in the first place.
And the first link in that list I opened does nothing but make the point that it is difficult to make climate predictions. So would that mean that if we were blind, we didn't have to be cautious? Apparently the attitude is that in spite of this happening (for example) :
A Warming Arctic: Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting Faster than Ever - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
("Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting Faster than Ever")
we should wait and see until something is proven beyond any doubt, beyond any reason to be skeptical? Again, there are always reasons to be skeptical, so then it will be too late. Because that will never happen.
The second link I opened (actually the first in the list) spends its time making points like this:
That's even a hypothetical.
Although 2 out of 450 is obviously a small sample, so far it doesn't seem that Sen. Kerry missed anything actually relevant to politicians who need to decide what to do now. Perhaps both articles can make contributions to the scientific study. Perhaps. However, neither of them appears to provide an even remotely substantial reason against the assertion that CO2 reduction is the right thing to do to keep a climate change from happening, or to show that this would not be necessary. The best I can tell, the scientific data is now such that the burden of proof goes to those who, for some reason, do not want us to reduce CO2 (if that is the intention?). (And even if, smog and air pollution would be obvious and obviously significantly harmful.)
From the link that AntronX provided is this link:
And with all these links to anti-resources, the subtitle of the page is "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology".