1,700 Scientists and Economists Call For Immediate Action on Greenhouse Gas Reductions
More than 1,700 of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists today released a joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
"The longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be to limit climate change," said the statement, which calls for a reduction in US emissions of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.
"There is a strong consensus that we must do something about reducing the emissions that cause global warming," said James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and one of the statement's authors.
Besides McCarthy, the statement authors include Mario Molina, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author; Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS); and Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University's Business School. The signatories, compiled by UCS, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 NAS members, and more than 100 IPCC authors and editors, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
A full copy of the letter and the criteria for those endorsing the letter can be downloaded here (pdf).
Why so few? You have the
Why so few? You have the president of the world's largest general scientific society, and yet you can't scare up more then a handful of scientists willing to sign off on this call for immediate action.
Your most notable scientist, Stephen Schneider, has recieved glowing endorcements from Paul Ehrlich, Margaret Mead, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and other assorted representatives of the lollypop guild. Why didn't you get some of those people to sign off on it?
Lol you probably did.
Just to fluff the number lol.
Because fluffing the number is wrong
Simple as that. But of course you inactivists don't really care about right and wrong. If The Other Side Did It Too -- or even if they didn't -- Then So Can You.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Wrong? Lets define that
Would you mean wrong like newspapers trumpeting tornado activity as proof of global warming, without mentioning that May has been 10 to 15 degrees below average across the midwest? Is that the kind of wrong you are talking about?
Or how about the wrong as in climate models for decades agreeing that this decade would be progressively hotter right up until it wasn't, and only then presenting a new and improved climate model which predicts 15 years of cooling before then next heatwave? Could that be the wrong you're talking about?
Or maybe wrong like in badgering the government to list polar bears as threatened, when the polar bears are enjoying the highest population totals ever recorded. That's got to be the one.
lol
This doesn't mean a thing.
This doesn't mean a thing. It's probably just scientist jocking for position to get a grant from Exxon. You know now that Exxon only issues grants to research favorable to Global Warming. They're all just tools of the Enviromental/Industry/Political complex. Of course there is no scientific proof that Global Warming is even a threat, just a bunch of nonfalsifiable conjecture.