Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is an “illusory goal”, said Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, Australia.
He said that CO2 – emitted by burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas – is a “minor” greenhouse gas. And he argued that the past decade has seen a “lack of warming” and that “no significant warming has occurred since 1958.
Professor Carter spoke out as governments from around the world gather for the latest climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Trying To Halt Global Warming Is A Waste Of Time
Trying to halt global warming is a waste of time – we should simply adapt to it, a leading climate expert claimed...
‘LEARN TO LIVE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE’, SAYS LEADING EXPERT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With all due respect, nobody remotely informed on environmental issues can take these clowns seriously. Carter in particular is bought off by the right-wing think tank IPA, and apparently makes a living misinforming the public for his corporate fuck buddies. Every single claim he makes here is either a bald-faced lie ("no warming since 1958" is possibly the most ludicrous claim I've ever heard from any climate skeptic...ever) or deliberately misleading ("CO2 is a marginal gas"). It is also a blatant contradiction to claim a) there is no warming and b) we can't stop the warming so we need to adapt.
ReplyDeleteI freely admit that I've become a left-wing prick on this issue. It's just that the pseudo-science trotted out by the gw deniers and Sarah Palin followers is *so* predictable, *so* misleading, and *so* insulting for those of us who have studied this issue in depth. When you can tell exactly where a snake is misleading the scientifically ignorant public, it gets under your skin.
/ dramatic rant over ;)
ReplyDeleteOk Cork, you got me - or at least we are at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteSo GW is happening, it could be, I am open to that, and I am suspicious of government (you could never fix that).
Clearly GW is used as a fear tool by the media (I don’t trust that part of the oligarchy, less than government BTW).
The point is can you convince me that GW is more important than pollution in general?
The answers I see tied in with GW all seem to be huge taxing schemes that will exempt the worst of the polluters and make us all take a hit for big ag and big manufacturing, just like the bank bailouts and the pollution will continue without the worst offenders fixing the problem (I think it will end up worse - that is what government is good at).
Do you agree that the government reaction to GW is fraudulent and if not what convinces you it is not?
Thanks for the comments, Cork. I don't know if I disagree with you or not, but I always like that you're passionate about the issue and don't just spout off without first doing your homework.
ReplyDeleteThe point is can you convince me that GW is more important than pollution in general?
ReplyDeleteI don't get how you don't consider this a pollution issue. Blowing up mountains and creating hazardous coal ash for a stupid fossil fuel is pollution. Hydrofracking operations that contaminate water supplies and pour toxic filth under the ground for the fossil fuel natural gas are forms of pollution. And let's not get started on petroleum.
The answers I see tied in with GW all seem to be huge taxing schemes
Under our current situation there are two options:
1) State intervention to protect polluters. polluters. This is what most libertarians support. "No government intervention" = (de facto) state protection of polluters.
2) Measures to address the tragedy of the commons and widespread externalities, considering that both have become extreme problems that the market is useless for solving. Market theory only holds true when each person internalizes the cost of his actions, and that's now what we have under our system.
I would add that the Defense Dept is the world's wost polluter and that state subsidies to fossil fuels are not a big help. Hopefully you will at least agree with me on ending those.
Well I agree pollution by big corp America sucks.
ReplyDeleteI do not think government has any intentions to now nor will ever fix the problem, in fact I see only increased taxes and support for corporations and polluters.
"State intervention to protect polluters. polluters. This is what most libertarians support. "No government intervention" = (de facto) state protection of polluters.”
I do not believe this is true, in particular the individualist types of libertarians - I certainly do not... I oppose corporate “personhood” as the government shielding the irresponsible.
I am not an anarchist nor a “L” libertarian but I share some points and views.