Comments on: New Climate Change Denial Groups Need Your Input

By: Rick H

Rick H — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:12:01 +0000

By the way, Fred Singer is retired, which is why he can freely speak out about the “Climate Change Hoax”. He has nothing to lose, unlike the government paid scientists with a families to feed. Look up his credentials – he should know what he is talking about!

ACC is a scam, and you have been duped!

By: Rick H

Rick H — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:07:03 +0000

I suppose you are saying that because a person has an interrest in the oil and gas industry that anything they say or do with regard to the theory of anthropogenic climate change is unreliable. How about the massive grants the enviro groups, mainstream media and government sponsored climate science gets to promote ACC with no dissenting viewpoint? Some also get funding from commodity brokerage houses that will make huge money on the carbon trading scheme. That makes them more believable? Yeah, right!

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:33:56 +0000

Suzanne, extreme poverty is terrible if you have had your livelihood ripped away from you by the ravenous industrial machine – but would you consider tribal people in their diminishing environments, living *only* off the land to be in “extreme poverty” – I think you might. And as for “energy deficiency” and the energy “needs” you write of: could you explain what you mean by this?

How much energy do you think we really need?

And which “environmentalists” do you know that only talk about CO2 and don’t give a stuff about habitat? I’ve never met any.

Your head sounds in a real mess, Suzanne – you sound; well you sound a bit like Bjorn Lomberg really. I’ve read the science; I know how to. How much objective science is in the NIPCC, I wonder…

…oh, what a surprise! It’s Fred Singer!!!

Heh, heh, heh! Loving his oil money, Suzanne.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:57:08 +0000

Why do “environmetalists” like to equate evironmentalism with belief in catastrophic climate change due to CO2? If these alarmists really bothered to study the science like Dr. Steward did, most of them would see the problem with the alarmist stance. However even if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is a minor player in the control of our climate, there is still the problem of meeting the energy needs (which includes food) without loss of species, habitat loss and increased pollution. The concentration on CO2 is leading to horrible impacts on our environment such as loss of birds and bats with poorly designed and sited wind farms, habitat loss from expansion of biofuels, clearcutting of old growth forests for “carbon offsets” and brown clouds from wood and dung fires because electrication in third world countries is not being funded. Extreme poverty and energy deficiency is the worst environmental disaster of all. Please read both sides of the story and get it from the actual literature instead of from the alarmist literature. For starters, I would suggest Both the full 4th IPCC Scientific Report and then the NIPCC report.

By: Rob Girard

Rob Girard — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:04:41 +0000

Nice article Keith. I’ll be spreading this around.