Not exact matches
Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us
about the interactions of
greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is
wrong.»
John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard's Program on Science, Technology and Public Policy and a longtime advocate of prompt curbs in
greenhouse gases, sent me a note
about the reaction he received after the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune published his opinion piece earlier this month asserting that «climate change skeptics are dangerously
wrong.»
So; anyone with a healthy brain who hasn't been sleeping under a rock the last 17 years should by now have noticed that «the UN» «s prognostications
about the warming potential of «
greenhouse gases» are clearly
wrong.
If the alarmists are
wrong about even one or two of them, human
greenhouse gas emissions move out of the realm of a nuisance requiring a response — whether by governments or via a (presently nonexistent) global property rights regime — and into the realm of speculation.
It wouldn't mean that theories
about carbon dioxide and
greenhouse gasses are
wrong.
While Christy only considered the possibility that climate models are
wrong, Taylor considered three possibilities: (1) the surface temperature record is biased high, (2) a factor other than human
greenhouse gas emissions is causing global warming, or (3) the «assumptions
about greenhouse gas theory are
wrong.»