Global Warming Alarmists: the Screamers.
As it turns out, there is now a point-by-point refutation (PDF) of the major hysterical claims of the global warming crowd, citing peer-reviewed research showing that the claims are wildly overblown.
Not, of course, that I expect those whose political party needs global warming to justify an expansion in the government to acknowledge scientific argument. They haven't so far. Since doing so might argue for dismantling the inflated staffing set in place to deal with this, and since the point for them is that there be no check to their officious intermeddling in daily life, they could simply argue that the report is a threat to employment. They would be right. Their employment.
UPDATE: Fuller Treatment here. The claims of damage are wrong. From a letter protesting the alarmists:
These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
Let's spend our money, borrowed as it is, on something that either preserves or expands our country and its resources.
Not, of course, that I expect those whose political party needs global warming to justify an expansion in the government to acknowledge scientific argument. They haven't so far. Since doing so might argue for dismantling the inflated staffing set in place to deal with this, and since the point for them is that there be no check to their officious intermeddling in daily life, they could simply argue that the report is a threat to employment. They would be right. Their employment.
UPDATE: Fuller Treatment here. The claims of damage are wrong. From a letter protesting the alarmists:
These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
Let's spend our money, borrowed as it is, on something that either preserves or expands our country and its resources.