Now that concervative leaders agree AGW is occurring, what are the latest excuses for inaction?

Question

Pat Roberson and Newt Gingrich are convinced that humans contribute to the global warming phenomenon we are now observing. They are currently running TV advertisements calling for action.. Newt Gingrich has talked with climatologist about the issue and has called for action for some time now. The National Academy of Science (the nations elite non-partisan scientific investigation service) has assessed the IPCC findings and agrees with them as do the vast majority of scientist. That's why fringe views that offer only opinion and no supporting investigation or analysis are posted on the web instead of peer review journals - it is easier to put out mis-information if there are no checks.

What lame excuse will people who say humans have no influence on the earth's climate despite pumping billions of tons of gases with high radiative forcing potential into the air every year beyond the gases that are naturally emitted have now? Remember natural cycles are known and considered.

Answer 1

At this point they're pretty much out of excuses and forced to fall back on the last refuge of denial - idiotic conspiracy theories.  Some say scientists are being paid off, others say it's all a hoax so they can get grant money, etc.  Most 'skeptics' don't even bother to try and make scientific arguments anymore because they've been so soundly defeated in that category.

Answer 2

The only problem with your theory is that there are many left wingers who also do not believe in AGW.

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."

Answer 3

Anyone that disagrees that human intervention is causing some environmental changes is just plain misguided...

The issue is not whether we are changing our environment, which is obvious, but how much...   Meaning, if I am to look at the current solar cycle data, it would appear that the manmade changes are allot less than we once thought...

Finally, this does not mean that I am saying we should not concentrate on better protecting our environment.  That is what Roberson and Gingrich are saying in fact... What I am saying is why not let free enterprise do it for us???  That appears to be exactly what is happening as the price of oil continues to go up...

Good Luck and I Hope this helps.. :)

Answer 4

Does this mean you have some empirical evidence that links the CO2 to the recent warming?

Edit:

Sorry Bubba, but the IPCC doesn't provide the empirical evidence that is needed--how does it link CO2 to the recent warming? Can you provide me with evidence of that signal? How about evidence that CO2 has been the MAJOR driver of the recent warming?

Regarding your response to Eric C:

I don't think anyone denies that the Earth has warmed (hopefully). What skeptics typically question is whether or not CO2 is the major driver of the recent warming--most skeptics, including myself, don't think it is. This is mainly due to the fact that there is very little evidence that CO2 is the major driver, and the evidence that is around isn't necessarily attributable to CO2.