|
Re: A list of those who do not accept the AGW dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahasattva
The only way that the EPA or other agencies can regulate CO2 emissions is if it is labeled a pollutant. This has been done by judges and politicians -- not scientists. I have already posted links and graphs that bring into question the claims that CO2 is a major factor in warming trends. It does not help the alarmists that the warming trend stopped in 1998 and has begun to reverse itself.
|
You sure about that? If that is indeed the case, was it done with no input from qualified scientific authorities? That seems rather unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahasattva
Does it? Has it? How has this effected world production? It has not.
Why would you accept hearsay?  "A friend told me," is not a really good source to base one's assumptions. The mail person of my cousin's hairdresser's garbage man says, it is really dumb to accept second hand or third hand hearsay as evidence.  |
What was really dumb was to ignore his reference to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008. If you'd gone to the trouble to have a look at it then you'd know that global production did indeed decline in 2007.
Oil production | Statistical Review 2008 | BP
__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?
--Hunter S. Thompson
|