A top U.S. economic adviser to the president once gave a speech in Williamsburg,

Question

A top U.S. economic adviser to the president once gave a speech in Williamsburg, Virginia (USA), to representa-tives of governments from a number of countries. He told his audience not to worry about atmospheric warming because the average global temperature increases predicted by scientists were much less than the temperature increase he had experienced that day in traveling from Washing-ton, DC, to nearby Williamsburg. What was the flaw in his reasoning? Write an argument that you could use to coun-ter his claim.

Explanation / Answer

Environmental Science is politically motivated.
Do you actually know the difference between a politician, economist, and a scientist?

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
The IP CC needs to be defunded and dis-banned!

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.