Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
Sigh. Ignoring the first link(which I did read already, and it's the typical Dana Nuticelli garbage) here's the Wikipedia entry:
Quote:
|
Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12]
|
Now, how can you read that and not nod your head and say "ya, that makes sense"?
I don't really see anything else that discredits him. So I think we should be at least examining these facts that come from places other than the usual "everything is horrible, and it is all CO2's fault".
Please, no more Skeptical Science. There must be other sources you can use to make points.