Is the science debate on global warming “over”? Politicians, pundits, and academics never tire of repeating “the debate is over” mantra. They could not be more wrong.
As I explain today on MasterResource.Org, all the basic science issues in the global warming debate–attribution, sensitivity, and even detection–are unsettled and more so now than at any time in the past decade.
For those who want to delve more deeply into these and other fascinating issues, check out the marvelous Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, Climate Change Reconsidered, authored by Drs. Craig Idso and Fred Singer with 35 contributors and reviewers. On a wide range of issues (nine main topics and 60 sub-topics), the NIPCC report demonstrates that the scientific literature allows, and even favors, reasonable alternative assessments to those presented by the U.N. IPCC, the self-anointed scientific “consensus.”
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
Consider your source of information: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
This "panel" was put together by whom?
oh, yes, that's right. The Heartland Institute. That bastion of pseudo-science in the name of their corporate sponsors that previously gave us the "no one has proven that smoking tobacco causes cancer" argument. Their involvement should lead any rational human to conclude that the alleged "skeptic" group has as much validity as their claims about the safety of tobacco
Comments on this entry are closed.