...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.
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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
ReplyDelete