Comments on: U.S. Faces Rising Pressure to Act on Climate Change http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/29/us-faces-rising-pressure-to-act-on-climate-change/ The Executive's Daily Green Briefing Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:27:50 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ben http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/29/us-faces-rising-pressure-to-act-on-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-106542 Ben Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:44:53 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/29/us-faces-rising-pressure-to-act-on-climate-change/#comment-106542 Let us review the evidence that CO2 is responsible for increasing temperatures. We are ignoring all result from unverified mathematical models (as any engineer can tell you, models are useless until verified). We are also ignoring all uses of the post-hoc fallacy, argument to authority, and all other logical falacies. ... That concludes the evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change. In all seriousness. We need hard evidence that there is a problem AND that CO2 is responsible before we commit trillions to fixing it. "Alternative Energy" sources are notoriously bad for the environment, using large swaths of land, killing huge numbers of birds, and producing very little energy in return. Efficiency increases will happen with or without government mandate, and the majority of offsets have been shown to be little short of fraud. Therefore, there is no silver lining if CO2 turns out to not be the major driver of climate. In short, the IPCC has yet to convince the scientific community at large that CO2 reductions are necessary. Let us review the evidence that CO2 is responsible for increasing temperatures. We are ignoring all result from unverified mathematical models (as any engineer can tell you, models are useless until verified). We are also ignoring all uses of the post-hoc fallacy, argument to authority, and all other logical falacies.

…

That concludes the evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change.

In all seriousness. We need hard evidence that there is a problem AND that CO2 is responsible before we commit trillions to fixing it.

“Alternative Energy” sources are notoriously bad for the environment, using large swaths of land, killing huge numbers of birds, and producing very little energy in return. Efficiency increases will happen with or without government mandate, and the majority of offsets have been shown to be little short of fraud. Therefore, there is no silver lining if CO2 turns out to not be the major driver of climate.

In short, the IPCC has yet to convince the scientific community at large that CO2 reductions are necessary.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/29/us-faces-rising-pressure-to-act-on-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-106524 Jeff Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:35:23 +0000 http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/29/us-faces-rising-pressure-to-act-on-climate-change/#comment-106524 Todd Stern did not say that "...the debate is over...the science is settled.." How could he. His marching orders require proceeding despite the absence of these two little factoids. Considering it would cost $trillions to transform the American way of life from fossil fuels to something else, how would the American people feel about proceeding in the absence of open debate on the subject, and discovering for themselves that GW science relies upon computer simulations using questionable programming and data inputs. And I would like to know who has validated these computer models, whether or not they are kept secret and unvailable for testing and evaluation by other scientists, and what confidence interval may be assigned to their output. Finally, how can President Obama ram this down the throat of the American people without involving them in a fair and open debate (remember, he promised change)? Todd Stern did not say that “…the debate is over…the science is settled..” How could he. His marching orders require proceeding despite the absence of these two little factoids. Considering it would cost $trillions to transform the American way of life from fossil fuels to something else, how would the American people feel about proceeding in the absence of open debate on the subject, and discovering for themselves that GW science relies upon computer simulations using questionable programming and data inputs. And I would like to know who has validated these computer models, whether or not they are kept secret and unvailable for testing and evaluation by other scientists, and what confidence interval may be assigned to their output.

Finally, how can President Obama ram this down the throat of the American people without involving them in a fair and open debate (remember, he promised change)?

]]>