... a leading climatologist says his research indicates that CO2 poses no threat to human welfare at all, and he says the EPA should revisit its findings.
“There is an overestimation of the environment’s sensitivity to CO2,” said Dr. Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies
at the CATO Institute and a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
Michaels spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man's role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations' latest report on climate change. ...
via FOXNews.com - Scientist Disputes EPA Finding that Carbon Dioxide Poses Threat to Humans.
This smells like more puppetry by the energy industries. There is big money in denial.
... Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels’ research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels’ magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)
Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism. ... - atlanticfreepress
Comment from disinfo:
There is a certain legitimacy to claims that anti-CO2/global warming advocates have used some questionable methodologies and drawn some conclusions that aren't completely supportable...
...but that doesn't make glaciers come back or explain why whole sections of the Arctic are becoming navigable and commercially viable territory for mineral rights wars.
I love conservative "non profit" think tanks. Who needs profit when you're handsomely funded by corporate donors to act as their mouthpiece? - disinfo
2 comments:
There's just as much big money on "green" energy and energy trading, and their sources are just as suspect. Ultimately, we all will be long dead before the debate is finished.
The best thing about being people who now shout "climate change" (former "global warming" folks) is that they cannot be proven wrong since the climate is always and has always been changing. Just because glaciers melt does not mean we are all going to die or that humans are responsible or that it's bad for earth--after all, glaciers formed the Great Lakes and many other natural formations.
One fundamental problem with C02 alarmists are that there is an underlying assumption that the Earth is--RIGHT NOW--in its most ideal state. That's not very likely.
There is much less green energy available than polluting energy, so there is much more money in denial. Extinction of out species is a pretty high price to pay for acting like a virus, but that will be our fate if we kill the host.
Post a Comment