Your Economy OT - Conspiracy, Politics, Religion, Terrorism, War

[fuagf]

extelecom, point of the article was that, Christy, before the US Congress, Lindzen on, Alan Jones, (fyi Australia's sorta equivalent to Limbaugh/Beck) in Australia, both used the same point, ie that pricing of CO2 in those two countries is a waste because their contributions are relatively small when looking at the whole world .. then taking action makes no difference, ignoring the knock-on affect .. it's the latest denier tactic as they've run out of other arguments .. so the focus of the author, NOT MINE, was on the US and Australia.

Yours is an illegitimate, .. playing your denier role, which you deny .. miss the point picky-pick .. it's typical that you would ignore ..

"A recent survey of 144 of the world's top economists with expertise on climate change found that 88% agreed that the benefits of carbon pricing outweigh the costs, and over 94% agreed the US should reduce its GHG emissions if other major emitters also commit to reductions (which many already have, particularly in Europe)" .. http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-3-christy-crock-5-opposing-solutions.html

You respect Lindzen in his denier role, eh .. here's more ..

Richard Lindzen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1977 and is a professor at MIT. He is rather well
known for claiming that "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress,
and many other places. Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".

* How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?

Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him. .. much more ..
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64531495