Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > December > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USEnvironmentalists say its another global warming hearing, and another stacked deck
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Another legislative hearing on global warming is only a day away, but environmentalists are already lining up to throw cold water on it.
Obviously, this is not a serious hearing, under the circumstances, as it’s been set up,” Edward McNally, communications director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, has told Morris News Service.
University of Georgia professor Harold Brown, who is skeptical of the phenomenon, is scheduled to be a featured witness. Martin Rickerd, the British consul general, will present the case that global warming is taking place.
Why senators had to go out-of-state for that kind of testimony, we don’t know.
But environmentalists are upset that no academic has been slated to speak in defense of those who say it’s happening, and that people are to blame.
Comments
By Gregory Cragg
December 5, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this
I have three global warming solutions. The first solution is for the masses as it is inexpensive and pays for itself by the energy one saves up to 50% of ones utility bill with a similar percentage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it lasts for many more years to come. This is a “NO BRAINER” as it will not cost the consumer anything as well this method uses proven technology. The 2nd solution is for a city or a country it captures a cities emissions and locks them away forever in part this system pays for itself is simple and would be inexpensive if several provinces or States were involved,this method also uses old proven technology. The 3rd method is something the world has overlooked, invented over 100 years ago, to day this innovation is worth trillions to the world, if the world new and used this method global warming would not be.
By Churchill
December 5, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this
I bet my thoughts on this will upset some libs. Yes, there is global warming. Earth’s climate is cyclical some times it get warmer, and sometimes cooler. Been that way for ever. Is mankind causing? Doubtful. Algore is a hack that flunked out of divinity school, but he is an expert snake oil salesman. Hanging with the Clinton’s will do that.
By Carbon Cycle
December 5, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this
Churchill: Did you flunk chemistry, or were you not even smart enough to take it? POP QUIZ: 1 - What happens when you add carbon to the gases we call “air?” 2 - What natural geologic occurences have dumped large quantities of carbon into Earth’s atmosphere througout the millenia, and how did these instances affect life forms in the following decades? 3 - If an element is hidden deep in the earth it is not in the atmosphere. So if MAN digs it out of the earth and puts it in the atmosphere, what do you think will happen, Einstein?
By Churchill
December 5, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this
I am far from a chemist, but I would think that carbon in the atmosphere, in large quantities, would not be a new deal. How much carbon do volcanoes release when they erupt? Anyway, I do not buy the consensus. So, whaddya you gonna do about it?
By Harold Brown is a quack
December 6, 2007 1:09 AM | Link to this
I’ve heard Harold Brown before…and he’s just lost his mind. He might have been sharp back in the day, but he really comes across as a crazy old kook these days. There are too many smarter, more accomplished scientists and professors in georgia to get to debate both sides of this debate.
By Anonymous
December 6, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
You don’t have to “buy the consensus,” Churchill. Your ignorance has no effect on the rest of us.
If our legislators were to share that ignorance, however… THEN we’d have problems.
P.S. Volcanoes release about 0.1% of the atmospheric carbon that anthropic emissions do. But that’s the sort of hard thinking and numbers stuff that seems not to interest you. Good thing there ARE people who are willing to look into it—and whom Al Gore is willing to cite for publicity purposes.
Too many folks seem to think that discrediting Al Gore personally will stifle the truth about global warming. But he’s just a spokesmodel for the solid science backing up the “consensu” you disdain. If global warming truly WERE a cult of personality, like the one surrounding Gee Dubya, then personally attacking Gore would have an effect. But it doesn’t.