Comments on: The Wall Street Journal could find only 16

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 04:39:33 +0000

Mary Contrary, your comment is a tired, over-used, and strictly false one. There is no evidence in support of what you say, and obviously you know none of the scientists involved in this work, including some of the “16″ who signed the letter, for they work at some of the same labs/agencies/academies! And for the record, I am not on a government payroll, my own climate research has never been funded by a government, and my academy is a private institution. Like the signatories of the letter, you should get your facts straight. But thanks for the comment.

By: Mary Contrary

Mary Contrary — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:29:42 +0000

Scientists with climate requirements (2) through (7) are on the payrolls of government-funded labs, agencies, and academies. They’re paid to get the right answers, removing them from the realm of any unbiased scientific inquiry at all.

By: Laura

Laura — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:13:16 +0000

there will be fossil brcaon corporations and governments of states with large fossil brcaon extraction industries who see climate action as a real threats to their profits, employment levels and tax revenue.The climate action opponent attack fronts include:1. The risks are exaggerated: a. Climate science is grossly exaggerating the effect of rising greenhouse gas levels on climate. b. The impact of temperature increases and higher CO2 levels are exaggerated.2. The action required to slow climate change will destroy our country’s/the world’s economy.On each of these fronts what is being put forward by climate action supporters is complex. There is the inherently complex science and complex action plans based on ETS or brcaon taxes. There is not a great deal that can be done about the science at this stage although some of the communication might be improved.On the other hand there are things that can be done about the action plan. It is pointless getting sucked into arguments about long term targets. All that is doing is convincing people that it is all too hard. What we need at the moment is a simple action plan for the next 5 to 10 years. An action plan that can at least convince people that there are easy things that can be done to at least slow down the rate of climate change until we are better prepared to do something about it.

By: Be Green

Be Green — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:48:01 +0000

Ironic how the WSJ advocates following the money as an argument, while the employers of the 16 scientists named clearly have an incentive to perpetuate the argument that global warming is nonsense. It doesn’t sound to me as if the scientists in question are really acting in good faith – more like blind faith.

By: Climate Change Blog: The Wall Street Journal could find only 16 « Roopnarine’s Food Weblog

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:55:12 +0000

[...] “The Wall Street Journal published an “Opinion” on January 27, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming“, with sub-title “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.” The article has 16 signatories, claimed by the editor to be scientists. The piece itself is a whiny, soap opera-type yarn detailing the horrors supposedly faced by the “growing” number of scientists who disagree with…”(read more here) [...]