Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
Thanks for your comments! It is actually good to meet people who, like myself are passionate about the environment.
"Just look at any credible scientific publication on climate."
OK, here are just a few to see if this statement actually means the statements must totally agree with one truth in order to be credible.
My concern is that our precious resources are directed efficiently to achieve the goal. There are suggestions that when the Earth had much higher CO2, there was more bio-life to feed a larger diversity (tonnage) of plant-eaters. In other words, higher CO2 - less world hunger. I don't know the answer. But if that did turn out to be the solution to world hunger, can humanity afford not to consider the theory?
Excerpts Published this week during the UN conference in France
AUSTIN, Texas - A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for a catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. (goes on to cite the statements)
“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote. “Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science. “John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added. Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”
Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.
Rather than be defending one side, my choice is consider both sides.
I have a problem with any Evangelist that requires my blind faith based on religious or political agendas. The Scientific Method is a worthy process. We saw all kinds of political funding of scientific "truth" during the 1930's through now.
Regarding: "Humans causing an increase in global temperature by the vast increase in CO2 emissions is well beyond doubt." Nothing is beyond doubt for some of us.