Quote:
Originally Posted by cabo35
I could not disagree with you more emphatically. I suspect that you have never read the 98 page report in its entirety or else you would not have been so erroneously judgemental. This is a link to the actual report. I did read it and could find no correlation to your misleading judgemental analysis about the Carlin-Davidson report. Here is a link to the actual report. I would be interested in opinions from anyone who takes the time to read it.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
The "smoking gun" you cavalierly dismiss is rooted in the suggestion that the Obama administration and the EPA relied on the " U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report."
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Here is the "smoking gun", in my opinion, based on my own amateur, independent cursory research on the subject. There is a virtual dearth of information about the latest IPCC authors report that in fact is critical of its own 2007 report. The authors of the UN's IPCC 2007 report....connect the dots.....have in a follow-up report suggested a "10 year postponement of global warning". Further, they state their 2007 report to the UN, did not take into account regional climate oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean since these are/may now be turning toward a "cooler" mode". They now believe that a global warning "postponement" appears likely. Please remember that this revelation is from the authors of the IPCC report that is the basis for all the global warning gymnastics, including Cap and Trade, we are now going through. You won't be reading about that in the Times or the rest of the elite media. However, if you wish, you can peruse it right here on TOTV the truly independent source for political news.....well.....opinions anyway. "Smoking gun anyone ?"
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf page 89 of 98.
Regarding your somewhat cheap shot at the authors, you state, "To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear neither of the men are scientists. " You perpetuate an omission of convenience and that is that Carlin and Davidson work for the EPA in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They are superbly credentialed as noted below to comment with authority on the subject matter in issue. Concurrently while you diminish their stellar work as "politically motivated" papers, you overtly give the IPCC 2007 report, the mother of all GW reports, a pass even though it is de facto, a political paper.
Even further, you omit and mislead with their credentials to speak to the subject. To correct the record:
Dr. Carlin, got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT,
Dr. John Davidson has a Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan
If you read my original post, I think we are somewhat in agreement as I clearly stated I just wanted to see all the facts made public so that the American public can make their own conclusions and choices....notwithstanding my straightforward disapproval of the current administration agenda.
On another note, I appreciate the time you take to offer your articulate professional insights into the National Health Care debate.
Have a good evening. |
Your comments are misleading an do not address with accuracy the things I refer too.
Superbly credentialed, for what? You are quite off base. If your political leanings are more important than validated science and researchers so be it, but do not presume that the rest of us will blindly aquiesce , and do not presume to know the extent of my readings and research which on this subject likely exceed yours.
In the end it is of no matter. Most of you are concerned with the political leanings of this much more than the possible effects to the planet. An open and inquisitive mind is required, as is holding people to scientific methods and standards. The very fact that there is controversy would indicate a detailed and open mined view of ALL of the evidence as it continues to become known is required.
Perhaps I can put it in a way that is more palatable to you. If there was a 1% chance that a certain building was likely to collapse, or that a terrorist attack would occur during a certain time frame would you take precautions? If there is even a small chance the the theories regarding global warming on on track, shouldn't we take precautions until we can be more certain either way? You would do well to spend as much time on the science of the issue as the political aspects.
I am frankly insulted by your crass and innaccurate comments concerning me (cheap shots etc) but it is what goes on in here, and expected.
You are welcome to the rest of the thread, it's all yours.
Oh, and have a good evening.