jmmx

Green Investments: Lots of Alternatives, with Big Names for Safety

@Socialism cannot compete!

Interesting what you have posted. But none of that article gives evidence against global warming per se, only that there are many who are not convinced.

It should also be noted that some of the quotes are misleading and taken completely out of context. I looked at just one and it was clearly misleading. Anyone who will deliberately misquote like this is not to be trusted.

Note that the title of the article is "Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'" As evidence there very second quote is the following:

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Let us look at her comment: "...As a scientist I remain skeptical."

What is in that ellipsis? There is the crux. What the article most DISHONESTLY ELIMINATED was really rather important, and totally controverted the point of this deceptive article. Let us see the full quote from
climatesci.org/2008/02.../

First, earlier she states: "There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring."

But the real misrepresentation by the article you quote is in the section containing the sentence printed in your article:

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

Notice "...WE MUST ACT..."

It seems to me that the article you referenced is the lie.

This is typical of the messianic anti-global-warming crowd who are lead by well-paid think tanks that use the same kind of propaganda that the cigarette companies used to say that there was no "proof" that "tobacco causes cancer." They took the fact that science frequently does not have definitive FORMAL proof, into an unrealistic doubt of the findings.

This is why I gave a "thumbs-down" to your post - NOT because I disagreed with you (I don't do that" but because your referenced article is bad journalism.

One thing IS clear: glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, birds are migrating sooner, permafrost is melting, and much of this is happening at a rate much faster than scientists had expected. If this IS do to human production of greenhouse gases, then we had better start doing something now.

IMHO

jmmx, Portland Oregon

Green Investments: Lots of Alternatives, with Big Names for Safety

I think the question is not whether we will make investments in clean energy, but rather if the Bush administration squandered the last chance we had to save the planet from an extreme climate change. Let's face it, if the current warming trend is due (in major part) to human caused greenhouse gas emissions, then even if we all were to leave the planet tomorrow, the earth would continue to warm up for another 10-20 years before the excess CO2 was eliminated. The CO2 existing in the atmosphere is the thermostat NOT the amount we emit in 1 year. So the last eight years of inactivity will have a cumulative effect.

To be honest, I fear we are already too late.