The report was recycled skeptical talking points. It was worthless as a contribution and right to be rejected. It was written by a couple of economists copying material from a skeptical Web site. Great stuff.
Sorry, one of the authors was an economist. The other author was an environmental scientist posted in the National Center for Environmental Economics. Mea culpa.
“The report was recycled skeptical talking points. It was worthless as a contribution and right to be rejected. It was written by a couple of economists copying material from a skeptical Web site. Great stuff.”
Quite a few of those points, if not all, are correct. Which do you dispute?
The fact is the Earth is cooling, and rather rapidly over the last few years. I’m also of the view, based on the best science regarding solar cycles, that the cooling trend will likely continue, as mentioned, until 2030 or so.
The global warming alarmists are simply in the position of having their lovely theories demolished by pesky reality. Good thing natural variability turned the way it did, or we’d be really screwed...on the other hand, I think there’ll be quite an unfortunate backlash against science as the end result. The backlash should really be against ignorant politicians who aren’t educated enough to make good policy based on science.
Up until 2007, the IPCC was still engaged in the debate but then broke sharply away from entertaining any contradictory findings thinking they had made a convincing argument with already agreed supporters in various areas for regulatory controls and great cooperation among member nations.
Since then the supporting science itself has seen a recycling of most of that work in the form of metastudies all of which have served to rachet up the “call to action” while ignoring the skeptics or, even worse castigating them as irrational “deniers.”
It seems the whole effort now has devolved to a massive marketing process whereby anyone who fails to climb aboard will forever miss the train.
Anyone who seriously doubts the idealism and evangelistic fervor of the current state of affairs is turning a blind eye. As we stand idly by while this wholesale “skepticide” continues, we may need to suffer in silence as dissent is likely to be the next target of an overweening new world order of things.
“It was written by a couple of economists copying material from a skeptical Web site.”
Just another followup on this, but the “economist” of the pair also has a Caltech physics degree. Hardly a lightweight.