THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Distinguished physicist Dr. William Happer: 'The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science'

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.Twitter / PeterGleick: Another twisted and ...
By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER
WSJ.COM 5/8/13: Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.
The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
Another twisted and scientifically badTwitter / PeterGleick: Of the first 7 sentences in ...#climate piece in the#WSJ. Deceptive from the first paragraph to the last. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html?dsk=y ….
Of the first 7 sentences in thisTwitter / PeterGleick: @PeterGleick Here's scrawled ...#WSJ#climate piece, 6 are outright false. The other is opinion. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html?dsk=y#articleTabs%3Darticle …. Then I gave up.
@PeterGleick Here's scrawled notes on the first seven sentences, before I gave up. Please, continue.

1 comment:
"...the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant."
Glieck says that's hyperbole. SO it's not a dangerous pollutant. Gotcha.
"That’s simply not the case." Then he says False.
So it is a dangerous pollutant.
Dude. Pick a color.
Post a Comment