...and neither will the rest of the lefties:
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Who says so? The usual suspects:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Why do I believe these people while discounting others with similar credentials? Because these people
make sense to me. It's truly as simple as that.
2 comments:
Belief has no place in this discussion which is why all the gas about peer-reviewed studies is immaterial. Either you can prove your hypothesis or you can't and no amount of deliberately vague, carefully slanted scholarly articles is a substitute for proof.
But lefties aren't interested in proof. They're interested in the self-identified superior imposing their views on their inferiors. That's too important an agenda to let something as trivial as a lack of evidence interfere.
IGore and O'Brainwashed ideology is to push climate change despite science backing it up, prop up green companies (and make or hope to make a lot of money off them.) The problem is that they can't completely manipulate the economy, hence companies like Solyndra fail because they can't make a product that has any value.
Post a Comment