Climate alarmists back Bush over Gore

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

Climate alarmists back Bush over Gore

In this week’s Nature prominent climate alarmist Tom Wigley, with co-authors Roger Pielke, Jr. and Christopher Green, WRITES that the IPCC has seriously underestimated the technical challenge of stabilzing atmospheric CO2 levels. Just as President Bush has long done the authors call for "enormous advances in energy technology". Nowhere do they call for the kind of economy-killing, anti-people government mandates and subsidies favored by Gore and his ilk.

Wonder how the Gore-struck media will handle this?

 

[spike]

What a ridiculous article from that dumb site. No surprise.

 

[jimpeel]

What a ridiculous article from that dumb site. No surprise.

Likely because you don't understand a word they are saying; or did you even read the article reprinted HERE? I'm willing to bet that you never got past the one paragraph synopsis in the thread header.

That "dumb site" is the highly respected magazine "Nature" Vol 452 of 3 April 2008 and was only reprinted by junkscience.com without change or comment.

In case you missed it, "Nature" is usually on YOUR side of the equation. They are, however, willing to give vent to all sides of the debate even though this article merely speaks to the cost and technology side of that debate.

Sorry if they stepped on your precious IPCC.

 

[spike]

Jim, it's the Junkscience article and interpretation that's stupid. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously posting crap from there?

"Anti-people", "Gore-struck"?

Dumb biased BS. Even your title is intentionally misleading. Get a clue.

 

[jimpeel]

Jim, it's the Junkscience article and interpretation that's stupid. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously posting crap from there?

"Anti-people", "Gore-struck"?

Dumb biased BS. Even your title is intentionally misleading. Get a clue.

So if junkscience is biased against the mainstream media -- which I have posted numerous examples of the MSM biases against conservatism and toward the junk science of GW -- then anything they post, reference, or link to is crap?

Do you have anything ... ANYTHING to say about the article in "Nature"?