http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_iNFAG254im4XHNHGNRIpKj6bLA
Dana - you need to update yourself on Gates' stand. While he is supporting research on geoengineering, he's very clear that we need to get to zero carbon.
Why aren't those of you who don't like the proposed economic solutions attacking those, instead of the science? Better yet - why aren't you proposing some solutions?
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
It's because FOX NEWS hasn't found the 'right' spin for it yet.
Dana1981
Personally if I were a denier, I would use Gates to make the 'Superfreakonomics' argument. Gates and the authors of that book think that while global warming is a problem, the best way to solve it is through geoengineering.
No climate scientists agree with them. However, it's a great position for AGW deniers, whose denial is based upon the fact that they vehemenly oppose carbon regulation. According to the Gates argument, we don't need to regulate carbon, because we can just manipulate the global climate through geoengineering in the future if climate change becomes too bad.
If I were a denier I'd be jumping all over this argument. It's way better than any of the arguments they make. It's an exceptionally risky and frankly stupid position, but nevertheless it's better than denying global warming to begin with.
david b
Who's Bill Gates?
GreenieMax
Why should we?
He has no political or scientific background to be taken seriously... he does not make any contribution to world or US policies. He has no seat in IPCC, he is just like any other person on Yahoo answers, only difference is that more people in the world could give him thumb down.
Anonymous
They haven't been able to hack into his e-mail, yet?
coldfuse,
I guess you didn't read the entire article... Later on, the author actually clears up what Dr. Jones said and it doesn't equate to "There has been no global warming since 1995" as that isn't a quote from Dr. Jones.
"He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend." Again, it isn't a direct quote, but basically shows that the statement made at the beginning of the article and the headline were manipulations of what he actually said.
_