This article is useless and skewed.
Im from Australia and the senator in question is a known skeptic who benefits from promoting those interests who would have most to loose in a carbon constrained economy.
"Skeptics" continue to benefit from saying oh its not happening. A senator taking a (likley) free trip to the US for a conference against climate change, big news!<p>You might find this more informative:
<a href="http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html" rel="nofollow">http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html</a><p>At least you have some facts to check. The wsj article is
mere hyperbole.<p>For less bias in the news you read check out newscred.com (no affiliation).
i don't know that any news corp outlet has reported anything to support the notion of climate change.<p>and to be clear, i'm not commenting on the issue itself, just the unbalanced coverage from this specific source.
Not only is this a dupe, it's a dupe from this morning.<p>Today the house passed the most important environmental bill in the nation's history, and that gets zero upvotes in favor of this. Really?
Why do these global warming skeptic articles keep popping up here? Global warming is certainly OT, and skeptics' theories are not really any more interesting than any other conspiracy theories.
It does not matter that the number of skeptics is swelling. It would not matter either if the number of warmists were swelling. Science is about observation, experimentation. Science is not about consensus. The truth does not care about what the ignorant masses think.<p>It does not matter either if the number of skeptic scientists is swelling. What matters is the opinion of the scientists who have studied the global climate. The opinion of the experts is the only one that matters. And since the experts may be wrong, their opinion should be viewed as an opinion, not as an absolute truth.<p>Moreover, I want to stress something important. This is not a game of "us versus them". The truth does not care for such petty human weaknesses. The climate is an extremely difficult problem, and anyone who's too sure of his / her views is probably not a real expert. And scientists should have the freedom to speak what they think, without fearing being attacked by the gullible masses.<p>I finish with a quote by Robert Oppenheimer:<p><i>"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."</i>