Difference between revisions of "Jay Lehr"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m (Quotes)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
==Quotes==
 
==Quotes==
*As a scientist with a half century invested in trying to understand the earth's [[climate]] and the various impacts of the [[sun]], the planets, the varying declinations of the earth's axis, changes in the earth's orbit and now man's possible role in increasing [[carbon-dioxide emissions]], it is disappointing to read a writer of my favorite newspaper, Deborah Solomon, write about the [[carbon credit]] or cap and trade debate with the assumption that there is no longer science to debate. Few serious, non-publicity seeking [[scientist]]s I know think we are even close to an understanding of our climate. Ms. Solomon seeks to frame the debate as “the scientific debate is over, now we just have to agree on the best way to pay for [[carbon emission]] reductions,” when in fact the [[scientific debate]] isn’t over, the case for action grows weaker by the day, and the costs, whether done with a [[carbon tax]] or [[cap and trade]], vastly exceed any hypothetical benefits and will cripple our children’s and grandchildren’s future prospects. This is not journalistic reporting--this borders on [[advocacy journalism]]. [http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22051 Letter to Wall Street Journal]
+
*As a scientist with a half century invested in trying to understand the earth's [[climate]] and the various impacts of the [[sun]], the planets, the varying declinations of the earth's axis, changes in the earth's orbit and now man's possible role in increasing [[carbon-dioxide emissions]], it is disappointing to read a writer of my favorite newspaper, Deborah Solomon, write about the [[carbon credit]] or cap and trade debate with the assumption that there is no longer science to debate. Few serious, non-publicity seeking [[scientist]]s I know think we are even close to an understanding of our climate. Ms. Solomon seeks to frame the debate as “the scientific debate is over, now we just have to agree on the best way to pay for [[carbon emission]] reductions,” when in fact the [[scientific debate]] isn’t over, the case for action grows weaker by the day, and the costs, whether done with a [[carbon tax]] or [[cap and trade]], vastly exceed any hypothetical benefits and will cripple our children’s and grandchildren’s future prospects. This is not journalistic reporting--this borders on [[advocacy journalism]]. [http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22051 (Letter to Wall Street Journal)]

Revision as of 14:42, 28 September 2007

Jay Lehr is science director of the Heartland Institute.

Quotes

  • As a scientist with a half century invested in trying to understand the earth's climate and the various impacts of the sun, the planets, the varying declinations of the earth's axis, changes in the earth's orbit and now man's possible role in increasing carbon-dioxide emissions, it is disappointing to read a writer of my favorite newspaper, Deborah Solomon, write about the carbon credit or cap and trade debate with the assumption that there is no longer science to debate. Few serious, non-publicity seeking scientists I know think we are even close to an understanding of our climate. Ms. Solomon seeks to frame the debate as “the scientific debate is over, now we just have to agree on the best way to pay for carbon emission reductions,” when in fact the scientific debate isn’t over, the case for action grows weaker by the day, and the costs, whether done with a carbon tax or cap and trade, vastly exceed any hypothetical benefits and will cripple our children’s and grandchildren’s future prospects. This is not journalistic reporting--this borders on advocacy journalism. (Letter to Wall Street Journal)