Remember, he told us that he wants politics out of science. Will he listen to anyone other then the True Believers? Climate Skeptics Challenge Obama ‘Mainstream’ Science
President Barack Obama’s plan to charge for greenhouse-gas emissions and use the revenue to trim taxes might be wise if the planet were truly warming, economist Ross McKitrick told a group of climate-change skeptics today.
A “truth-based†system to limit heat-trapping gases only if warming is scientifically confirmed might satisfy both sides of the debate, the associate professor of economics at Canada´s University of Guelph said at a conference in New York. The U.S. president has proposed rolling back emissions to 1990 levels regardless of the extent of higher global temperatures.
I wonder if one of the True Believers could explain why they want to use 1990 as the baseline, when they claim, depending on who you are talking to and what their debate points are, that warming started in 1979/1980 and/or the beginning of the 20th Century, all caused by Mankind, of course. Why is one output bad, and another slightly lower output OK? If the CO2 output is so bad, why not reduce it to almost nothing? (Hint: it’s about money and control.)
At a three-day event billed as the biggest meeting of global-warming skeptics, McKitrick and colleagues are challenging the accuracy of long-range climate forecasts and published theory on the extent of warming as their contrarian views are shunned by corporate and political leaders, from the president to the head of U.S. utility Public Service Enterprise Group.
How dare they have a meeting? Don’t they know the science is settled? We wouldn’t want to practice “sound science,” as Obama put it. Only True Believers are allowed to have meetings, though I’m not sure why they are necessary, since the science is settled by consensus
The meeting of 600 attendees ends tomorrow as a United Nations-sponsored conference begins in Copenhagen on the science of global warming, drawing together about 2,000 scientists, politicians and economists of a different stripe. UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon will meet with Obama and members of Congress in Washington tomorrow to urge stronger action to fight climate change.
Say, how much CO2 will these thousands of folks put out as they fly around the world, cruise around in limo’s, etc and so on, for a nice little working vacation in lovely Copenhagen? The carbon offsets they will claim to purchase will takes years to a decade to kick in, so, if anyone is killing the world, it would be the UN IPCC conference attendees.
“Global warming alarm has always been a political movement, and opposing it has always been an uphill battle,†Lindzen said. Scientists who endorse global warming are “richly rewarded for doing so,†he said.
“Nuff said.
Well, actually, more:
 U.S. House of Representatives Quietly Scraps Plan to Become ‘Carbon Neutral’
What’s that, Queen Nancy and the Dems realized how difficult it is to do their jobs and how costly carbon offsets are? Goodness. Of course, they want to saddle the rest of us peons with massive cost hikes to pay for AGW measures.
Teach,
What you don’t seem to understand is that the purpose of keeping politics out of science is to let science lead the way, without political intrusion. This political intrusion is what deniers want — political actions, which would server as obstacles to scientific research, such as Bush’s political actions against stem cell research. Deniers can have their meeting, but the proper forum for expressing concerns with scientific research is in scientific literature, not in a public forum.
However, “keeping politics out of science” does not mean, forbidding science to influence public policy. In fact, that is the point of keeping politics out of science. By allowing the scientific process to continue unfettered, we can obtain a better understanding about our climate and our world, which we can use to help make appropriate policy decisions.
It is basically the opposite of your worldview, which is similar to that of the Dark Ages. You seem to hold the intellectually incurious view that ideology should rule, and that science is a waste of time.
My opinion is that deniers should be given an amount of time in public forums that is proportionate to their contribution to the scientific research in the field of climate science, which is virtually nonexistent. However, you will see that the media, in an effort to be fair and balanced, gives them a nearly equal amount of coverage, which far exceeds their standing in the scientific literature.
OK, so, it is OK for Obama to interject politics, but not Bush. I think I understand you now.
No, judging from your paraphrasing, you apparently DON’T understand me now. Would you like to try again, or shall I go ahead and just give you an ‘F’?
Oh, I understand you: you want to limit debate on the big stage, so that the debate continues to be one sided. So much for liberal notions of free speech and debating science.
No, you don’t, Teach. On the issue of climate change, there is no bigger stage than the scientific literature. One can argue all they want in a public forum, but they still must be able to back up their assertions with the results of scientific research. This, deniers CANNOT do.
You’ll also notice that I said anyone should be free to have whatever meetings they wish. They just shouldn’t expect such meetings or debates to prove or disprove AGW.
So much for you understanding, huh?