[classicman]

Link 1

The latest findings, from a study of Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey and Nasa, reveal that pollution is saving the planet from global warming. Wal, who'd ha' thunk it? Unfortunately, interfering environmentalist busybodies, by banning CFCs and other pollutants, are hastening the advance of global warming. Eventually the hole in the ozone layer will close and the Antarctic will heat up. Simultaneously, according to a study in Nature, the atmosphere will clear, reducing plants' capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. This would appear to be what is vulgarly known as an own goal.

Link 2

Without any supporting evidence, Walsh pronounces the "scientific case is clear" and then proceeds to a conclusion. What is the "scientific case" Walsh believes is "clear"? Does Walsh realize there are more than 31,000 US scientists (over 9,000 with PhD's), including preeminent physicists and atmospheric scientists, who, based on their scientific expertise in disciplines related to climate and climate change science strongly disagree with climate alarmists' claims upon which the EPA relies?