Feed on
Posts
Comments

Dear Global Warming Deniers:

If it actually turns out that you are wrong and that the global damages from CO2 emissions may actually be harmful in the long run, are you prepared to suggest that we direct policies to do something about it, especially low or no regrets policies that will not doom us if we are wrong?

 

Dear Global Warming Alarmists:

If it actually turns out that you are wrong and that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not only harmless but also on net beneficial to the Earth, are you prepared to offer up or accept policies to subsidize or at least contribute to the addition of CO2? Or even about no- or little-regrets policies that don’t reduce CO2?

 

If either says no, we are not here in the realm of science, but pure pre-Copernicum mysticism and appeals to imagined authorities. Whichever ideology you happen to share, ask your like-minded friends these above questions and please report back to me. Inquiring minds want to know.

2 Responses to “Who’s the Paragon of Science?”

  1. Dan Pangburn says:

    Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper to a paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing. Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence. The average global temperature trend is down.

  2. Harry says:

    Does not question hinge on the premise, “,,,if it actually turns out”? How will we know that a change of x parts per million is (not “may be”) causing y net benefit or loss?

    I am neither a Denier or an Alarmist, so I guess you were not asking me.My answer to both questions is yes, provided that Harry Reid is not in charge, or the UN.

Leave a Reply

books on zlibrary official