Comments on: Climate alarmists call for more groupthink http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/04/03/climate-alarmists-call-for-more-groupthink/ Climate Change News & Analysis Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:44:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Samhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/04/03/climate-alarmists-call-for-more-groupthink/comment-page-1/#comment-27259 Sam Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:48:49 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=11974#comment-27259 Pierre Champagne's statement is absurd. If CO2 is not the danger or culprit it is claimed to be by alarmists (as it increasingly appears not to be), it is both fantastic and beneficial that we did not listen to them. If we had made changes based on their erroneous counsel, there would have been no impact on the climate but we would have experienced a negative opportunity cost of spending scarce resources on a phantom. What a silly comment. Pierre Champagne's statement is absurd. If CO2 is not the danger or culprit it is claimed to be by alarmists (as it increasingly appears not to be), it is both fantastic and beneficial that we did not listen to them.

If we had made changes based on their erroneous counsel, there would have been no impact on the climate but we would have experienced a negative opportunity cost of spending scarce resources on a phantom.

What a silly comment.

]]> By: Pierre Champagnehttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/04/03/climate-alarmists-call-for-more-groupthink/comment-page-1/#comment-27210 Pierre Champagne Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:59:33 +0000 http://www.openmarket.org/?p=11974#comment-27210 We seem to forget that good science errs on the side of caution. We are in a big mess right now. It is not like we are guilty of acting early. If we had heeded the calls of those alarmist, we would be in a much better position right now. Cap-and trade is not likely to be enough. If you are interested in an environmental strategy that would be powerfu enough, you should check the following website: <a href="http://wavesofthefuture.net/" rel="nofollow">A Structural Approach: Better Than Cap-and-Trade</a> We seem to forget that good science errs on the side of caution. We are in a big mess right now. It is not like we are guilty of acting early.

If we had heeded the calls of those alarmist, we would be in a much better position right now.

Cap-and trade is not likely to be enough. If you are interested in an environmental strategy that would be powerfu enough, you should check the following website:

A Structural Approach: Better Than Cap-and-Trade

]]>