http://www.samefacts.com/2006/03/microeconomics-and-policy-analysis/global-warming-the-case-for-inaction/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.samefacts.com/2006/03/microeconomics-and-policy-analysis/global-warming-the-case-for-inaction/comment-page-1/#comment-23989 Max Power Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:33:06 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/03/uncategorized/global-warming-the-case-for-inaction/#comment-23989 A comment thread? You never do those! Your case is a good summary of the "we don't know nothing and we can't do anything about it anyway" argument. It's main appeal is putting the the burden of proof back on proponents of controls - and later getting to define what counts as proof. But many opponents of controls simply make the more direct case that global warming caused by greenhouse gases is bunkum. For example, John Stossel in his 2004 book "Give Me a Break" writes: The biggest scare now is global warming. Here, too, the activists (and the media) tell only part of the story. It made headlines when 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of the "devastating consequences" of global warming. But I bet you never heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases will disrupt the earth's climate. That was less exciting "news". He's asking us to believe that the world's governments including the US signed the Kyoto protocols in 1998 despite the activists opinions being outnumbered over ten to one in the scientific community. The implausibility is self-evident, but don't think that stops opponents of controls from making these kinds arguments. A comment thread? You never do those!
Your case is a good summary of the “we don’t know nothing and we can’t do anything about it anyway” argument. It’s main appeal is putting the the burden of proof back on proponents of controls – and later getting to define what counts as proof.
But many opponents of controls simply make the more direct case that global warming caused by greenhouse gases is bunkum. For example, John Stossel in his 2004 book “Give Me a Break” writes:
The biggest scare now is global warming. Here, too, the activists (and the media) tell only part of the story. It made headlines when 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of the “devastating consequences” of global warming. But I bet you never heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there’s no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases will disrupt the earth’s climate. That was less exciting “news”.
He’s asking us to believe that the world’s governments including the US signed the Kyoto protocols in 1998 despite the activists opinions being outnumbered over ten to one in the scientific community.
The implausibility is self-evident, but don’t think that stops opponents of controls from making these kinds arguments.

]]>