This news story has 11 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »
•  
  

  • PCScipio: 
  • Comments (101)
  An article debunking global climate change in Scientific American would carry a lot more weight than an article in the WSJ.

  Jun 26 02:25 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Hask: 
  • Comments (52)
  Carbon-based, man-made global warming has been a fraud from the start and now the evidence is waking people up to this reality. Sun cycles are much more important in changing short-term temperatures and I don't think politicians have the ability to legislate away those. If the fools in Congress pass this Cap & Trade bill they will further devastate an already weak economy and have negligible effect on the climate. Spain has tried this path and it failed miserably. Emerging economies will not follow this hamstring their economies based on faulty "science" and America will suffer economically for generations. Let's hope this bill fails and reasonable efforts are made to get scientific facts on this issue out in the open.

  Jun 26 02:35 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • spald_fr: 
  • Comments (381)
  Maybe you should read Kimberly Strassel's article before you comment, PCScipio.
  
  From the article: "A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)"
  
  The magazines are part of the contingent who wish to have no discussion on the topic of human impact on global warming.
  
  That's not very scientific, so the WSJ has to do the heavy lifting.

  Jun 26 02:35 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • spald_fr: 
  • Comments (381)
  You can press the "thumbs down" all you want, PCS. It's not going to change the fact that there's a gathering "consensus" that human impact on global warming is BS.

  Jun 26 02:40 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • PCScipio: 
  • Comments (101)
  I never press those buttons, truly. Must be others who think you're a tad shrill.

  Jun 26 02:47 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • tedfoo: 
  • Comments (31)
  I doubt this is the reason anything is getting pushed through in a hurry. Most Americans believe what they are told: that global warming is a certainty. Most politicians believe what they are told. So who is doing the telling? I don't even know anymore, and I'm worried some of it's just rumors now. Yes, there's been a lot of research on the subject saying it is happening, and some saying it's not.
  
  As a meteorologist, I think I have an understanding of the subject far more than a politician like Al Gore or the average citizen does. So what's my stance on the subject...I can tell you there are three things I can say with absolute certainty just based on all the stuff I had to study in college that had nothing to do with this geopolitical debate.
  
  1) The climate of the Earth has changed over and over again during the past 100 million years, and humans had nothing to do with that.
  2) The Earth's atmosphere is an incredibly, incredibly complex system which meteorologists don't fully understand to this day.
  3) Humans are terrible at predicting the future.
  
  So my stance on anthropogenic global warming? I'm agnostic. The only thing that I believe is that we don't know for sure. And it makes me so mad to see the science of climatology being wielded by politicians screaming doomsday to accomplish an agenda.
  
  I don't believe that humans should treat their atmosphere as a free dumping ground for whatever they chose. I don't believe that's ethical, and I'll concede there may be some danger in doing so. But please don't insult the science with your outrageous fantasy claims by pretending YOU know the answer cause you read a paper on the subject. NOBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER.

  Jun 26 02:48 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Windsun33: 
  • Comments (682)
  •  • StockTalk (10)

  • •
  • Northern Arizona Wind & Sun
  • |
  • windsun.com/
  Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 95,000 for debunking global climate change.
  
  There have been hundreds of scientific papers and studies done. The fact that Scientific American refuses to publish ANY article even remotely critical of their idealogical stance should say something about their bias.
  
  For example, from a recent issue: "few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature". What they failed to note is that in fact temperatures have dropped since 2001.
  
  On Jun 26 02:25 PM PCScipio wrote:
  
  > An article debunking global climate change in Scientific American
  > would carry a lot more weight than an article in the WSJ.

  Jun 26 02:49 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • elliotz: 
  • Comments (104)
  Whatever happend to the global cooling theory that was pushed in the 70's by the same person that initially started pushing the global warming theory in the 90's. Im outraged at people who will not allow a debate to go on about this topic but just wanna shove their view points down your trought. When Al Gore testified in congress they would not allow someone who wanted to testifie with him but give an opposite view point. Unfotunatley I belive that most Americans are dumbed out and most are brainwashed by the main stream media who are mostly extremly left leaning liberals who belive that Obama and the dems just cant do wrong. If this bill passes my only hope is that American would wake up to reality after they see how bad the system fails and toss all the bums out of office, but forgive me if I do not have much faith in the intelect of the american people as a whole. I mean who cares about these issues when you have I love money or housewives on TV to keep them busy.

  Jun 26 03:00 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Niner: 
  • Comments (669)
  I have a degree in Forestry. That and a dlollar will get you a cup of coffee ( just plain ole coffee) just about anywhere. I feel all the warming senarios are plausible but so are the senarios involving natural climate change.
  
  Bottom line is unlike some, I'm not arrogant enough to think I have all the answers. Remember, the best minds of the time thought the earth was flat! Many time a theory is proposed and the facts are sought to support the theory. This is happening on both sides of this issue. Even though I'm pretty much straddling the fence, I would not just toss out all efforts to reduce emissions. Even if it doesn't cause the temps to rise they can't be good to breath.
  
  Who ever said temps have dropped since 2001. Eight years is a blink in the time span of climate. Are temps up or down in the last 100 yrs?

  Jun 26 03:11 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Poor Texan: 
  • Comments (354)
  If cap and trade is so important to reverse global warming, then it is imperative that the legislation include a ban on trade with any country that does not have similar legislation. It's the only fair thing to do.

  Jun 26 04:38 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • InnocentsAb...: 
  • Comments (108)
  Whoops. Basic physics does hold. changing the composition of the atmosphere shifts the movement of radiant heat. Sun cycles do not change atmospheric composition.
  
  There will always be debates about the meaning of any given scientific data. Fortunately, the American public at a certain point makes reasonable decisions about the wisdom of any given scientific consensus, and is willing to have public policy proceed.
  
  On Jun 26 02:35 PM Hask wrote:
  
  > Carbon-based, man-made global warming has been a fraud from the start
  > and now the evidence is waking people up to this reality. Sun cycles
  > are much more important in changing short-term temperatures and I
  > don't think politicians have the ability to legislate away those.
  > If the fools in Congress pass this Cap & Trade bill they will
  > further devastate an already weak economy and have negligible effect
  > on the climate. Spain has tried this path and it failed miserably.
  > Emerging economies will not follow this hamstring their economies
  > based on faulty "science" and America will suffer economically for
  > generations. Let's hope this bill fails and reasonable efforts are
  > made to get scientific facts on this issue out in the open.

  Jun 27 01:50 AM | Link | Reply