|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 29, 2014 23:46:43 GMT
If you sincerely believe that "market forces" will cause coal-fired powerplants to "convert to natural gas" because it is "less expensive" than coal, why not just allow these "market forces" to work, instead of having the president issue mandates?
Because the coal fired powerplants are producing unnecessary pollution that violates my Inalienable Rights to clean air, land and water. They do not have a Right to Pollute and any pollution has be be justified. Unnecessary pollution cannot be justified and up to 40% of the pollution from coal cannot be justified based upon statements made by the coal industry repeatedly over the last ten years or more. The coal industry itself has stated that the pollution is unnecessary as it has the technology to eliminate it.
Then I reiterate: Why not just allow those "market forces" to work? That will surely eliminate the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 30, 2014 4:15:49 GMT
Because the coal fired powerplants are producing unnecessary pollution that violates my Inalienable Rights to clean air, land and water. They do not have a Right to Pollute and any pollution has be be justified. Unnecessary pollution cannot be justified and up to 40% of the pollution from coal cannot be justified based upon statements made by the coal industry repeatedly over the last ten years or more. The coal industry itself has stated that the pollution is unnecessary as it has the technology to eliminate it.
Then I reiterate: Why not just allow those "market forces" to work? That will surely eliminate the problem.
The role of government is, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the inalienable Rights of the Person, and so long as our government protects my Right to clean air, land, and water by limiting any allowable pollution to the least extent pragmatically possible then I don't have a problem with market forces being left to control the price of energy. What I object to is when the goverment doesn't protect my Rights as a Person by allowing unnecessary pollution such as we have with coal fired powerplants.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 30, 2014 23:40:39 GMT
Then I reiterate: Why not just allow those "market forces" to work? That will surely eliminate the problem.
The role of government is, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the inalienable Rights of the Person, and so long as our government protects my Right to clean air, land, and water by limiting any allowable pollution to the least extent pragmatically possible then I don't have a problem with market forces being left to control the price of energy. What I object to is when the goverment doesn't protect my Rights as a Person by allowing unnecessary pollution such as we have with coal fired powerplants.
Whereas I would certainly not advocate the total elimination of all government regulation--who really wants to breathe polluted air and drink dirty water, anyway?--I do believe that the federal government has gone overboard in this area; especially the EPA. And I would much prefer that state governments and city governments should be allowed to take the lead here, rather than the federal government. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 31, 2014 11:00:22 GMT
Whereas I would certainly not advocate the total elimination of all government regulation--who really wants to breathe polluted air and drink dirty water, anyway?--I do believe that the federal government has gone overboard in this area; especially the EPA. And I would much prefer that state governments and city governments should be allowed to take the lead here, rather than the federal government.
First and foremost there is nothing preventing the state and local governments from taking the lead when it comes to pollution but they are limited to addressing pollution that only effects their state and/or local communities. They have no authority over corporations in other states that can and are causing pollution to their state. Only the federal government can provide regulations when it comes to pollution that crosses state lines. The pollution from coal fired powerplants crosses not just state lines but international borders as well and it is a federal matter.
We can also note that many states not only don't take the lead but actually allow unacceptable pollution. The perfect example of this has been the case with Duke Energy where the governor of the state is a former Duke Energy executive. Perhaps you've been following that story.
While you might be willing to accept unnecessary pollution I am not and we're no where near eliminating the unnecessary and unjustifiable pollution being created not just by industry but by individuals as well. I grew up in So. California and, as a surfer and scuba diver, I watched as the pollution destroy to coastal ocean. The rich habitate of the coastal waters of the 1950-60's are almost all gone today because of pollution. There used to be massive kelp beds along the coastline that were being commerically harvested and today most of those kelp beds are gone because of pollution contained in the water run-off from the coastal cities. The oceans are literally dying around the world today and if the oceans die then ultimately mankind dies.
We're killing the life of the planet and while you might not care I most certainly do. Our problem isn't over-regulation related to pollution but under-regulation because we're still killing the planet. Local communities, the states, and the federal government aren't doing enough to protect the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 31, 2014 20:50:48 GMT
Whereas I would certainly not advocate the total elimination of all government regulation--who really wants to breathe polluted air and drink dirty water, anyway?--I do believe that the federal government has gone overboard in this area; especially the EPA. And I would much prefer that state governments and city governments should be allowed to take the lead here, rather than the federal government.
First and foremost there is nothing preventing the state and local governments from taking the lead when it comes to pollution but they are limited to addressing pollution that only effects their state and/or local communities. They have no authority over corporations in other states that can and are causing pollution to their state. Only the federal government can provide regulations when it comes to pollution that crosses state lines. The pollution from coal fired powerplants crosses not just state lines but international borders as well and it is a federal matter.
We can also note that many states not only don't take the lead but actually allow unacceptable pollution. The perfect example of this has been the case with Duke Energy where the governor of the state is a former Duke Energy executive. Perhaps you've been following that story.
While you might be willing to accept unnecessary pollution I am not and we're no where near eliminating the unnecessary and unjustifiable pollution being created not just by industry but by individuals as well. I grew up in So. California and, as a surfer and scuba diver, I watched as the pollution destroy to coastal ocean. The rich habitate of the coastal waters of the 1950-60's are almost all gone today because of pollution. There used to be massive kelp beds along the coastline that were being commerically harvested and today most of those kelp beds are gone because of pollution contained in the water run-off from the coastal cities. The oceans are literally dying around the world today and if the oceans die then ultimately mankind dies.
We're killing the life of the planet and while you might not care I most certainly do. Our problem isn't over-regulation related to pollution but under-regulation because we're still killing the planet. Local communities, the states, and the federal government aren't doing enough to protect the planet.
If pollution "crosses...international borders," that necessarily begs the question: Just what can the US federal government do to prevent pollution by those in other countries--those who are much bigger polluters than America is? Some are content to merely set an "example," in the (rather fatuous) hope that others will likely follow. This is not entirely dissimilar to the idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a terrific idea, since it, too, would set an "example" worthy of emulation. And I believe our problem is, indeed, over-regulation. I just yesterday watched a piece by John Stossel on FNC, in which he featured a Wyoming man who had obtained all the necessary permits from the state of Wyoming to build a pond on his property; yet the EPA has now threatened him with fines of $187,500 a day if he does not destroy the pond. If that is not an example of over-regulation, I simply cannot imagine just what might be. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 1, 2014 10:58:09 GMT
If pollution "crosses...international borders," that necessarily begs the question: Just what can the US federal government do to prevent pollution by those in other countries--those who are much bigger polluters than America is? Some are content to merely set an "example," in the (rather fatuous) hope that others will likely follow. This is not entirely dissimilar to the idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a terrific idea, since it, too, would set an "example" worthy of emulation. And I believe our problem is, indeed, over-regulation. I just yesterday watched a piece by John Stossel on FNC, in which he featured a Wyoming man who had obtained all the necessary permits from the state of Wyoming to build a pond on his property; yet the EPA has now threatened him with fines of $187,500 a day if he does not destroy the pond. If that is not an example of over-regulation, I simply cannot imagine just what might be.
The United Nations is attempting to address world-wide pollution and, of course, there are international treaties that the US can become a party to that also address the issue. Instead of fighting those treaties, which the US consistantly does, actually being a party to them and being a leader in creating stiffer standards as a world leader would have an impact over time.
Of course doing what's right does not hinge upon what others do.
I've also read of anecdotal cases where the EPA is apparently over-extending itself but they are extremely rare cases and often of questionable regulatory standands or, more likely, improper enforcement of the regulatory standards. But let's simply assume that 1% of EPA regulations are wrong, 99% are correct, and there are reasons to create more regulations that fall within the group of the 99% that are correct. Just because 1% is wrong doesn't imply we shouldn't do more of what's right. Doing what's right is always the right thing to do.
We continue to destroy the environment and ecology of the United States and that reflects gross under-regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 2, 2014 0:28:18 GMT
If pollution "crosses...international borders," that necessarily begs the question: Just what can the US federal government do to prevent pollution by those in other countries--those who are much bigger polluters than America is? Some are content to merely set an "example," in the (rather fatuous) hope that others will likely follow. This is not entirely dissimilar to the idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a terrific idea, since it, too, would set an "example" worthy of emulation. And I believe our problem is, indeed, over-regulation. I just yesterday watched a piece by John Stossel on FNC, in which he featured a Wyoming man who had obtained all the necessary permits from the state of Wyoming to build a pond on his property; yet the EPA has now threatened him with fines of $187,500 a day if he does not destroy the pond. If that is not an example of over-regulation, I simply cannot imagine just what might be.
The United Nations is attempting to address world-wide pollution and, of course, there are international treaties that the US can become a party to that also address the issue. Instead of fighting those treaties, which the US consistantly does, actually being a party to them and being a leader in creating stiffer standards as a world leader would have an impact over time.
Of course doing what's right does not hinge upon what others do.
I've also read of anecdotal cases where the EPA is apparently over-extending itself but they are extremely rare cases and often of questionable regulatory standands or, more likely, improper enforcement of the regulatory standards. But let's simply assume that 1% of EPA regulations are wrong, 99% are correct, and there are reasons to create more regulations that fall within the group of the 99% that are correct. Just because 1% is wrong doesn't imply we shouldn't do more of what's right. Doing what's right is always the right thing to do.
We continue to destroy the environment and ecology of the United States and that reflects gross under-regulation.
No, doing "what's right" may, indeed, "not hinge upon what others do." But doing what is effective, in this case, does, indeed, "hinge upon what others do." The "treaties" to which you refer--all that I am aware of, anyway--do not have the support of such massive polluters as China or India. And your (rather touching) faith that America's taking a "leader[ship]" role in this regard--in other words, imposing restrictions upon American industry that the Chinese government does not impose upon Chinese industry, and that the Indian government does not impose upon the Indian industry, thereby making America less competitive in a worldwide market--seems to be steeped in mere "hope and change" (where have I heard that before?) rather than in hard reality. By the way, would you insist that you, personally, are helping to "destroy the environment and ecology of the United States"? That is certainly what the pronoun, "we," would seem to imply, |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 2, 2014 10:51:55 GMT
No, doing "what's right" may, indeed, "not hinge upon what others do." But doing what is effective, in this case, does, indeed, "hinge upon what others do." The "treaties" to which you refer--all that I am aware of, anyway--do not have the support of such massive polluters as China or India. And your (rather touching) faith that America's taking a "leader[ship]" role in this regard--in other words, imposing restrictions upon American industry that the Chinese government does not impose upon Chinese industry, and that the Indian government does not impose upon the Indian industry, thereby making America less competitive in a worldwide market--seems to be steeped in mere "hope and change" (where have I heard that before?) rather than in hard reality. By the way, would you insist that you, personally, are helping to "destroy the environment and ecology of the United States"? That is certainly what the pronoun, "we," would seem to imply,
We can, according to the coal industry, economically eliminate up to 40% of the pollution from coal with existing "off-the-shelf" technology advocated by the coal industry and, as we've noted, market forces will result in no actual increase in the cost of electricity in the United States as many of these powerplants will simply convert to natural gas. There is no negative impact to the US ecomony by requiring the existing coal fired powerplants to convert to clean coal technology. You keep building one false allegation upon another but your's is a house of cards. There will be no increase in the cost of electricity and converting to clean coal technology will not adversely effect the US economy.
Yes, all of us contribute to the destruction of the environment and ecology of the United States. When we plug in an electrical appliance that electricity comes from all of the electrical power sources in the US as they are all tied together. The difference is that I seek to reduce the pollution at the source for the electrical power I use. I find it absurd, for example, that some have the notion that owning an electric car reduces pollution but it doesn't because the electricity is coming, in part, from coal fired powerplants that are the single largest producers of pollution in the US today.
We can economically eliminate up to 40% of the pollution from coal fired powerplants without any negative consequences. The coal industry has been telling us that for over a decade. There is no rational reason to not eliminate this pollution.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 2, 2014 23:26:10 GMT
No, doing "what's right" may, indeed, "not hinge upon what others do." But doing what is effective, in this case, does, indeed, "hinge upon what others do." The "treaties" to which you refer--all that I am aware of, anyway--do not have the support of such massive polluters as China or India. And your (rather touching) faith that America's taking a "leader[ship]" role in this regard--in other words, imposing restrictions upon American industry that the Chinese government does not impose upon Chinese industry, and that the Indian government does not impose upon the Indian industry, thereby making America less competitive in a worldwide market--seems to be steeped in mere "hope and change" (where have I heard that before?) rather than in hard reality. By the way, would you insist that you, personally, are helping to "destroy the environment and ecology of the United States"? That is certainly what the pronoun, "we," would seem to imply,
We can, according to the coal industry, economically eliminate up to 40% of the pollution from coal with existing "off-the-shelf" technology advocated by the coal industry and, as we've noted, market forces will result in no actual increase in the cost of electricity in the United States as many of these powerplants will simply convert to natural gas. There is no negative impact to the US ecomony by requiring the existing coal fired powerplants to convert to clean coal technology. You keep building one false allegation upon another but your's is a house of cards. There will be no increase in the cost of electricity and converting to clean coal technology will not adversely effect the US economy.
Yes, all of us contribute to the destruction of the environment and ecology of the United States. When we plug in an electrical appliance that electricity comes from all of the electrical power sources in the US as they are all tied together. The difference is that I seek to reduce the pollution at the source for the electrical power I use. I find it absurd, for example, that some have the notion that owning an electric car reduces pollution but it doesn't because the electricity is coming, in part, from coal fired powerplants that are the single largest producers of pollution in the US today.
We can economically eliminate up to 40% of the pollution from coal fired powerplants without any negative consequences. The coal industry has been telling us that for over a decade. There is no rational reason to not eliminate this pollution.
I agree with you as concerning the use of electric cars: It is merely a feelgood sort of initiative, that does not carry with it the positive impact that so many ecozealots suppose. I have already made this point, but I will reiterate it; so here goes: Whether or not a conversion to another technology would necessarily cause an increase in energy costs is really beside the point. The real point is this: If energy costs would actually decrease, absent this conversion, it is not good for those at the economic margins to be unable to reap these (potential) economic benefits.
Oh, and thank you for addressing, directly, the use of the pronoun, "we," in a prior post. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 3, 2014 11:43:56 GMT
I agree with you as concerning the use of electric cars: It is merely a feelgood sort of initiative, that does not carry with it the positive impact that so many ecozealots suppose. I have already made this point, but I will reiterate it; so here goes: Whether or not a conversion to another technology would necessarily cause an increase in energy costs is really beside the point. The real point is this: If energy costs would actually decrease, absent this conversion, it is not good for those at the economic margins to be unable to reap these (potential) economic benefits.
Oh, and thank you for addressing, directly, the use of the pronoun, "we," in a prior post.
I don't believe there is enough of a financial incentive for the coal fire powerplants to convert to natural gas because it requires capital investments although a few have made this investment. It requires a capital investment that is only recovered over time and most are reluctant to do this so long as they're allowed to simply pollute without any significant restrictions.
Imposing the requirement to install the "clean coal technology" that the coal industry has been advocating for years requires a capital investment and that gives the elecrtical powerplant a choice between two different capital investments. Either they invest in the clean coal technology that they've been advocating or they invest in converting to natural gas.
In short the pollution regulations provide the financial incentive to make the capital investments that is lacking today. We won't see a decrease in the costs of electricity because there isn't a financial incentive for the powerplant to make a capital investment. The coal fired powerplants will just continue "business as usual" because they don't want to invest in the future. We need to give them a reason for change.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 3, 2014 20:38:56 GMT
I agree with you as concerning the use of electric cars: It is merely a feelgood sort of initiative, that does not carry with it the positive impact that so many ecozealots suppose. I have already made this point, but I will reiterate it; so here goes: Whether or not a conversion to another technology would necessarily cause an increase in energy costs is really beside the point. The real point is this: If energy costs would actually decrease, absent this conversion, it is not good for those at the economic margins to be unable to reap these (potential) economic benefits.
Oh, and thank you for addressing, directly, the use of the pronoun, "we," in a prior post.
I don't believe there is enough of a financial incentive for the coal fire powerplants to convert to natural gas because it requires capital investments although a few have made this investment. It requires a capital investment that is only recovered over time and most are reluctant to do this so long as they're allowed to simply pollute without any significant restrictions.
Imposing the requirement to install the "clean coal technology" that the coal industry has been advocating for years requires a capital investment and that gives the elecrtical powerplant a choice between two different capital investments. Either they invest in the clean coal technology that they've been advocating or they invest in converting to natural gas.
In short the pollution regulations provide the financial incentive to make the capital investments that is lacking today. We won't see a decrease in the costs of electricity because there isn't a financial incentive for the powerplant to make a capital investment. The coal fired powerplants will just continue "business as usual" because they don't want to invest in the future. We need to give them a reason for change.
So you are advocating that the heavy hand of government should displace the decisions that are ordinarily made by private enterprise in a free-market economy? Whereas I seriously doubt that most CEOs have my best interests or your best interests at heart, I have even less faith in the goodwill of the typical senator or congresscritter--or the president of the United States (whomever that might be at any given time). I am reminded of the title of a recent book by Jason Riley-- Please Stop Helping Us--and, although it was really meant by Mr. Riley in a different context, I would prefer to apply it here: Please, Mr. and Mrs. American Politicians, stop "helping" the American people--now! |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 4, 2014 10:41:36 GMT
So you are advocating that the heavy hand of government should displace the decisions that are ordinarily made by private enterprise in a free-market economy? Whereas I seriously doubt that most CEOs have my best interests or your best interests at heart, I have even less faith in the goodwill of the typical senator or congresscritter--or the president of the United States (whomever that might be at any given time). I am reminded of the title of a recent book by Jason Riley-- Please Stop Helping Us--and, although it was really meant by Mr. Riley in a different context, I would prefer to apply it here: Please, Mr. and Mrs. American Politicians, stop "helping" the American people--now!
How about I believe in a level playing field for enterprise where one does not receive preferrential treatment (i.e. favoritism = crony capitalism) over another enterprise. Let's set the pollution emission standards based upon the average pollution levels today by all forms of electrical power production and then give all electrical power producers 15 years in which to meet or reduce their pollution to below that level. I'm just guessing but would tend to believe the "average" would be somewhere around the natural gas pollution levels because many sources like nuclear and hydro-electric power production produces no atmospheric pollution.
Level the pollution playing field for electrical power production and end the crony capitalism associated with coal industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 4, 2014 20:43:56 GMT
So you are advocating that the heavy hand of government should displace the decisions that are ordinarily made by private enterprise in a free-market economy? Whereas I seriously doubt that most CEOs have my best interests or your best interests at heart, I have even less faith in the goodwill of the typical senator or congresscritter--or the president of the United States (whomever that might be at any given time). I am reminded of the title of a recent book by Jason Riley-- Please Stop Helping Us--and, although it was really meant by Mr. Riley in a different context, I would prefer to apply it here: Please, Mr. and Mrs. American Politicians, stop "helping" the American people--now!
How about I believe in a level playing field for enterprise where one does not receive preferrential treatment (i.e. favoritism = crony capitalism) over another enterprise. Let's set the pollution emission standards based upon the average pollution levels today by all forms of electrical power production and then give all electrical power producers 15 years in which to meet or reduce their pollution to below that level. I'm just guessing but would tend to believe the "average" would be somewhere around the natural gas pollution levels because many sources like nuclear and hydro-electric power production produces no atmospheric pollution.
Level the pollution playing field for electrical power production and end the crony capitalism associated with coal industry.
I don't know if you realize it or not, but "level the playing field" is a cliche that is typically bandied about by the left in America; it is entirely devoid of any real intellectual substance. And what is your definition, exactly, of the "crony capitalism" that is (supposedly) "associated with the coal industry"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 5, 2014 12:47:34 GMT
How about I believe in a level playing field for enterprise where one does not receive preferrential treatment (i.e. favoritism = crony capitalism) over another enterprise. Let's set the pollution emission standards based upon the average pollution levels today by all forms of electrical power production and then give all electrical power producers 15 years in which to meet or reduce their pollution to below that level. I'm just guessing but would tend to believe the "average" would be somewhere around the natural gas pollution levels because many sources like nuclear and hydro-electric power production produces no atmospheric pollution.
Level the pollution playing field for electrical power production and end the crony capitalism associated with coal industry.
I don't know if you realize it or not, but "level the playing field" is a cliche that is typically bandied about by the left in America; it is entirely devoid of any real intellectual substance. And what is your definition, exactly, of the "crony capitalism" that is (supposedly) "associated with the coal industry"?
Crony capitalism is typically defined as an economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention.
The coal industry receives preferential regulation which allows it to pollute excessively and unnecessarily when compared to other enterprises that have also been identified as major pollution sources.
One of the problems that I tend to believe exists is that because pollution form coal is mostly invisible people tend to believe it doesn't exist. If a coal fired powerplant dumped a million tons of raw carbon in front of city hall every year the people would be in an uproar but because it is dispursed as CO2 into the air and they can't see it then suddenly it doesn't exist for them. People really aren't very good at understanding very large numbers and few can conceptualize what 3.7 million tons of pollution actually is and yet the average coal fired powerplant emits that many tons of CO2 gas every year. If we could dye the coal fired power plant emissions purple you couldn't even see the sun because of the haze it would create.
BTW While I don't base my arguments on AGW I came across a couple of articles on it yesterday that might be of interest to you.
Study: 99.999% Certainty Humans Are Contributing To Global Warming io9.com/study-99-999-certainty-humans-are-contributing-to-glo-1630581153
Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Pie Chart io9.com/scientific-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-1499762156
"In reviewing more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications, authored by over 9,000 authors between November 2012 and December 2013, geochemist James Powell found just one author who rejected global warming."
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 5, 2014 23:39:13 GMT
I don't know if you realize it or not, but "level the playing field" is a cliche that is typically bandied about by the left in America; it is entirely devoid of any real intellectual substance. And what is your definition, exactly, of the "crony capitalism" that is (supposedly) "associated with the coal industry"?
Crony capitalism is typically defined as an economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention.
The coal industry receives preferential regulation which allows it to pollute excessively and unnecessarily when compared to other enterprises that have also been identified as major pollution sources.
One of the problems that I tend to believe exists is that because pollution form coal is mostly invisible people tend to believe it doesn't exist. If a coal fired powerplant dumped a million tons of raw carbon in front of city hall every year the people would be in an uproar but because it is dispursed as CO2 into the air and they can't see it then suddenly it doesn't exist for them. People really aren't very good at understanding very large numbers and few can conceptualize what 3.7 million tons of pollution actually is and yet the average coal fired powerplant emits that many tons of CO2 gas every year. If we could dye the coal fired power plant emissions purple you couldn't even see the sun because of the haze it would create.
BTW While I don't base my arguments on AGW I came across a couple of articles on it yesterday that might be of interest to you.
Study: 99.999% Certainty Humans Are Contributing To Global Warming io9.com/study-99-999-certainty-humans-are-contributing-to-glo-1630581153
Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Pie Chart io9.com/scientific-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-1499762156
"In reviewing more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications, authored by over 9,000 authors between November 2012 and December 2013, geochemist James Powell found just one author who rejected global warming."
What sort of "preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention" do you have in mind, exactly? Moreover, instead of our regulating coal more intensely, why not just lessen the regulations elsewhere, so as to bring everything more in line with each other? Your comment that " eople really aren't very good at understanding very large numbers and few can conceptualize what 3.7 million tons of pollution actually is" strikes me as most condescending. You appear to be suggesting that you can understand this "very large number" quite well; but that the typical American is, well, simply without a clue.
Oh, and your conclusion that there is a "99.999% Certainty [That] Humans Are Contributing To Global Warming" is really a non sequitur; which is to say, the conclusion does not necessarily derive from the set of facts you presented. Rather, the fact that only one out of about 2,000 authors came to the conclusion that there is currently no global warming, tells us that 99.95 percent of these authors (well. that is almost "99.999%") believe this.
In any case, I think I would be rather reticent to rely upon the appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) in trying to establish a case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
|
|
