The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism

October 08, 2010

A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action.

Salesman of Skepticism

Singer is a traveling salesman of sorts for those who question climate change. On this year's summer tour, he gave speeches to politicians in Rome, Paris and the Israeli port city of Haifa. Paul Friedhoff, the economic policy spokesman of the FDP's parliamentary group, had invited him to Berlin. Singer and the FDP get along famously. The American scientist had already presented his contrary theories on the climate to FDP politicians at the Institute for Free Enterprise, a Berlin-based free-market think tank, last December

In all cases, their tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action. This photo shows a high-altitude meeting of the Nepalese cabinet in the shadow of Mount Everest to highlight the impact of global warming on the Himalayas.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed92085cf222.jpg[/atsimg]

www.spiegel.de...

Manhattan by night: The skeptics are accused of having links to energy companies
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4762835cae21.jpg[/atsimg]

No big surprise here, these skeptics or should I say debunker's have a vested interest in seeing nothing done about climate change, evil personified in my opinion, don't these scientists have families and a future to think about.

By spreading doubt and claiming it's too soon to take action is what those who are causing some of the problem want to hear, they don't pay attention to the 90% of scientists who says there is a problem and we need to do something about it now. We may have already reached the tipping point and it's too late to make any real difference. That is not to say that this is all caused by man, some of it is natural.
.

reply to post by Aquarius1


Questioning cause and effect before the world invests in technology that will likely double the cost of electrical power is not a bad thing. The USDOE has been developing various CO2 capture and sequestration technologies but has not yet deployed any. They are still in pilot stages, at best, and, as they mature, will start to be demonstrated at ever increasing scales. In the interim, nuclear power will enjoy a resurgence and, possibly, no CO2 will have to be sequestered if fossil plants are replaced with nukes.
Meanwhile, study of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, should continue as models generally ignore its effects. Natural weather cycles should also be investigated in detail. We know the earth was much warmer 1000 and 2000 years ago with periods of cold in between. CO2 concentrations trailed the temperature changes and did not lead them.
There is no doubt that some of the climate books were recently cooked for whatever reasons. The infamous "hockey stick" graph was a fraud. Data are not what they seem to be and basing world-changing decisions on herd-mentality science is not a good plan.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Aquarius1

 

Questioning cause and effect before the world invests in technology that will likely double the cost of electrical power is not a bad thing. The USDOE has been developing various CO2 capture and sequestration technologies but has not yet deployed any. They are still in pilot stages, at best, and, as they mature, will start to be demonstrated at ever increasing scales. In the interim, nuclear power will enjoy a resurgence and, possibly, no CO2 will have to be sequestered if fossil plants are replaced with nukes.
Meanwhile, study of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, should continue as models generally ignore its effects. Natural weather cycles should also be investigated in detail. We know the earth was much warmer 1000 and 2000 years ago with periods of cold in between. CO2 concentrations trailed the temperature changes and did not lead them.
.

What ever they are doing they shouldn't be prognosticating do you honestly think they know exactly what is going on, these studies that they think need to be done over and over only delays the inevitable, I say better safe then sorry, it certainly can't hurt to make the changes that are needed to stop polluting our atmosphere and planet.

Manhattan by night: The skeptics are accused of having links to energy companies
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4762835cae21.jpg[/atsimg]

linking skeptics to energy companies is the way to discredit anyone who does not believe in AGW.

Now let us find those who make money out of the AGW agenda and watch it get brushed under the carpet as these people are beyond reproach and really care for the planet, they are not interested at all in the billions of dollars and control they will have.

skeptic = haters of planet and are greedy
Pro AGW = lovers of humanity and are altruistic