Cap and Trade. Good, bad or ugly?

[saskganesh]

The google machine seems to have beaten your claims.

Hans appears to be using speaking notes circa 2003-4 when such denials were still being made.  We must assume that new speaking notes were never issued.

older. it's all from Big Tobacco's playbook. create doubt, sow confusion, and above all keep possession of the ball.

anyhow, more on the subject,  this is a good site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[Hansmeister]

Nonsense.  Actually, disagreement about the impact of CO2 on the climate has only grown, which is why the EPA had to forbid its scientists from challenging the global warming hysteria.  There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

[Neil]

Nonsense.  Actually, disagreement about the impact of CO2 on the climate has only grown, which is why the EPA had to forbid its scientists from challenging the global warming hysteria.  There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

Is that true, or is it sort of like how disagreement about the existance of evolution has only grown, which is why the government had to forbid its scientists from challenging the evolutionary orthodoxy?

[Valmy]

Nonsense.  Actually, disagreement about the impact of CO2 on the climate has only grown, which is why the EPA had to forbid its scientists from challenging the global warming hysteria.  There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

So...it is all a giant conspiracy?

[crazy canuck]

There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

Me thinks you protest too much.  You might disagree with the science (although that is becoming very hard to do as the evidence mounts)  but to suggest there is no science is absurd.

[Valmy]

Me thinks you protest too much.  You might disagree with the science (although that is becoming very hard to do as the evidence mounts)  but to suggest there is no science is absurd.

I am sure he means no science in some sense that there actually is no science.  Like there is no science with universal consensus or something.

[crazy canuck]

I am sure he means no science in some sense that there actually is no science.  Like there is no science with universal consensus or something.

There is no spoon?

[Valmy]

Eugenics was the principal foundation of the entire progressive movement, so it's kinda silly to try to play godwin's law with it.

OMG The Bull Moose Party were NAZIS!

Hans sez: Teddy Roosevelt = Hitler.

[Hansmeister]

Nonsense.  Actually, disagreement about the impact of CO2 on the climate has only grown, which is why the EPA had to forbid its scientists from challenging the global warming hysteria.  There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

So...it is all a giant conspiracy?

It is a pseudoscience ... just like eugenics was.  There is absolutely no evidence of either correlation or causation between CO2 emmissions and global warming.  Just a lot of people depending on this to be true for their economic and political livelihood, which is why all the "science" in the field has been focused on starting with the conclusion, looking for anything that can be used to support it while ignoring anything that doesn't.  then create models that will support your foregone conclusion and when they fail (as they all have), either excuse them, or design a new model that will prove your foregone conclusion.  And then repeat over and oer again.  None of the comports with the scientific method.  The problem is that we don't know nearly enough about how the climate works to even apply the scientific method effectively to determine anything at all about the changes in the climate (if any).  Indeed, even the global temperature data we have isn't very accurate.

[crazy canuck]

Indeed, even the global temperature data we have isn't very accurate.

Indeed, everyone who has noticed that the permafrost and glaciers are melting is delusional.  We ought to round them all up so that they cannot continue to perpetuate the Big Lie.

[Valmy]

Just a lot of people depending on this to be true for their economic and political livelihood

What?  Are you honestly suggesting there are fewer people who depend on their economic and political livelihood that this not be true?  The major reason we do not act forcefully on this issue (which if the chicken littles are correct would be logical) is because of the economic costs.

So basically you are implying these people are completely and irredeemably evil.  They made something up to cause tremendous problems and economic pain because it may slightly enhance their own career and make them a bit more money.  Oh and they know they are wrong but they conspire to advance the lie anyway.

I mean who does that?  Somebody so black hearted I have a hard time believing they exist.

But you do this all the time.  Your opponents are not simply wrong and disagree with you, they are completely evil.

Not that alot of people who support climate change don't do that same thing...but man it gets tiresome.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't understand the worries about fraudulent permits.  Just maintain a central clearing house.

[Neil]

Nonsense.  Actually, disagreement about the impact of CO2 on the climate has only grown, which is why the EPA had to forbid its scientists from challenging the global warming hysteria.  There is no science that supports the global warming theory.

So...it is all a giant conspiracy?

Well, I suppose you could say so, although I don't think that the climate-change-deniers are organized enough to be a real 'conspiracy'.  Still, their methods seem to be identical to the evolutionary-denial conspiracy, so I suppose that it's not impossible.

[garbon]

So basically you are implying these people are completely and irredeemably evil.  They made something up to cause tremendous problems and economic pain because it may slightly enhance their own career and make them a bit more money.  Oh and they know they are wrong but they conspire to advance the lie anyway.

I mean who does that?  Somebody so black hearted I have a hard time believing they exist.

How is that irredeemably evil? I don't have a problem who want to get rich on the backs of having us pollute less (because even if it doesn't stop the globe from warming, it can't be a bad thing to be creating less pollution).

[Neil]

There is absolutely no evidence of either correlation or causation between CO2 emmissions and global warming.

I think we've seen a great deal of data that indicates that high concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ result in elevated temperatures, via the greenhouse effect.