Scary, Scary Words

So this is the editorial published today by 56 newspapers (all but one outside the United States) that is causing the right to self-immolate (emphasis is mine):

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

The perceptual damage done, at least in the short-term, to the legitimacy of decades of global warming research by “Climategate,” as triumphant global warming deniers are calling it, is unarguable. However, as Andrew Revkin and John Broder document in the New York Times today, the credibility hit is being used by climate change skeptics to discredit the actual science behind climate research beyond what the substantive content of the stolen e-mails justifies and, even more important, without regard to the massive body of evidence that has been collected over decades by hundreds of climate scientists all over the world that leaves no reasonable room for doubt that man-made global warming is real and that it poses a catastrophic threat to human survival.

Yet the case for human-driven warming, many scientists say, is far clearer now than a decade ago, when the skeptics included many people who now are convinced that climate change is a real and serious threat.

Even some who remain skeptical about the extent or pace of global warming say that the premise underlying the Copenhagen talks is solid: that warming is to some extent driven by greenhouse gases spewing into the atmosphere from human activities like the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Roger A. Pielke Sr., for example, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has been highly critical of the United Nations climate panel and who once branded many of the scientists now embroiled in the e-mail controversy part of a climate “oligarchy,” said that so many independent measures existed to show unusual warming taking place that there was no real dispute about it. Moreover, he said, “The role of added carbon dioxide as a major contributor in climate change has been firmly established.”

It’s easy enough to point to the anti-intellectualism and hostility to science that runs rampant on the religious right and among social conservatives as explanation for the truly extraordinary levels of ostrich behavior in the United States, as opposed to any other country in the world. On this subject, though, I think there is something stronger and more pervasive than fundamentalist religiosity at work. You might call it “American exemptionalism.” Here are a few examples of it:

  • Bruce McQuain: Headline: “Copenhagen Is Not About ‘Science’; It’s About Income Redistribution.”
  • The Jawa Report: “Warmist Conspirators Reveal True Goal in Mass Editorial.” That’s the headline. And below, in the text:

    If you had any doubt that the whole thing is a political movement based on junk science, buried within the common editorial is the real purpose of the hysteria:

    Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.

    Copenhagen has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the planet. It’s all about using the manufactured “crisis” to fleece the citizens of the United States.

  • Michelle Malkin: “No amount of evidence will dent the cult’s belief in AGW and the need for what the collectivist editorialists call transformative ‘social justice.’ “

Social. Justice. Separately, they are innocent and harmless. But put them together, like so:

SOCIAL JUSTICE

and you have the two most terrifying words in the English language.

Author: KATHY KATTENBURG

51 Comments

  1. I believe that such a joint/common editorial by 56 newspapers in 45 countries must be a very rare, unique phenomenon.

    Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kathy.

    There will certainly be a lot favorable and unfavorable comments on this one, and the usual battle lines drawn.

    I, for one, hope that the world makes some progress on this critical issue in Copenhagen.

    As the editorial says, “This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.”

    Thanks again, Kathy

  2. I am confused. Last year we had an election in which both candidates for President and both candidates for Vice President accepted man made climate change as a fact and all proposed cap and trade as a solution. Are you telling me that some of these people lied?

    I am stunned, absolutely stunned. I have never heard of such a thing.

    OK, now that I think about it the previous President first accepted MMCC and then didn't until he appointed a truth commission to decide. And they told him he was wrong but had been right before. So he believed it was true, again. But he apparently still didn't know what to do about it because he didn't do anything.

    Like I said, I am confused. How can everyone be sitting at the children’s table? Where are the adults?

  3. When they hold a climate change crisis conference that does not require 1,200 limos and 140 private jets, then I might take it more seriously.

    Till then, it is not much more than self-aggrandizing publicity hounds jumping on the latest cause célébrité.

  4. SOCIAL JUSTICE…and you have the two most terrifying words in the English language

    In my house I'd have to replace those with “EXPLODING DIAPER.”

  5. The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years.

    Well, it's going to be an interesting show, a smackdown between the immovable object and the irresistible force.

    I don't know how reliable the climate models are at predicting 50 or 100 years from now, but I do know there is simply no chance of global emissions peaking within ten years. So if one takes the editorials at face value, our doom is certain and the wisest course is to do nothing. The case for action has come full circle to become the case for inaction. If the urgency wasn't overstated before, it certainly has been now.

  6. Talking about climate change–and sea levels rising–I just got this e-mail from a wise friend:

    Subject: Learn from Noah..and his ark…

    Everything I need to know about life, I learned from Noah 's Ark ..

    * One : Don't miss the boat.

    * Two : Remember that we are all in the same boat.

    * Three : Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark.

    * Four : Stay fit. When you're 600 years old, someone may ask you to
    do something really big.

    * Five : Don't listen to critics; just get on with the job that needs
    to be done.

    * Six : Build your future on high ground.

    * Seven : For safety sake, travel in pairs.

    * Eight : Speed isn't always an advantage. The snails were on board
    with the cheetahs.

    * Nine : When you're stressed, float a while.

    * Ten : Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by
    professionals.

    Eleven: No matter the storm, when you are with God, there's always a rainbow
    waiting.

    Bottom line:

    The woodpecker might have to go! (You figure out who the woodpecker is)

  7. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kathy.

    You're welcome, Dorian. Thanks for the appreciation.

  8. ROTFLMAO!!!

    Oh lord, Andy, that is funny.

    Been there, done that.

  9. That's cute, Dorian. :-)

    I'll add another history lesson, much more recently than Noah's Ark, but still ancient days from our perspective:

    Remember Easter Island.

    Don't cut down the last tree

    Figure out another way to get the big stone statues to the site.

    Just don't do it, man. You'll regret it.

  10. Good post Kathy. I think a lot of people are genuinely confused by the whole subject of climate change, and when that confusion is also coupled with deep suspicion arising from a partisan or ideological place, then the stage is set for the sort of conspiratorial reactions we've seen a lot of lately. Of course the climate scientists whose behaviors were revealed in the emails didn't exactly help their own credibility, but they were under the rather naive (in this day and age) assumption that their personal communications were private and would never be exploited for political purposes. Ah well, in this age of division and animosity reasoned responses seem to be the exception. As merkin so eloquently observed:

    How can everyone be sitting at the children’s table? Where are the adults?

    Where indeed? I've been asking myself variations of that question for several years now.

  11. I'm genuinely confused, JSpencer, and getting increasingly uncomfortable with the familiar patterns emerging. Alarms being sounded from the left about something that was taking care of itself fine for centuries and suddenly can't without massive government intervention. Loudly proclaimed certainties about science that must actually be anything but certain (and I don't mean historical temperature trends, I mean predictions about the climate 100 years from now). Theatrical demands for courses of action that simply can't be implemented. Writing off the opposition as ideologically driven demons.

    None of that disproves global warming, of course. But it does make me increasingly worried about a big boondoggle, because it fits the pattern so well.

  12. Alarms being sounded from the left about something that was taking care of itself fine for centuries

    The simple response would be that we haven't had the sort of technologies “for centuries” that are capable of impacting the planet on the scale they can now. Also I am not “writing off the opposition as ideologically driven demons”, but I hardly respect the sentiments expressed by people (like Malkin, Beck, Reagan, Limbaugh or others of similar ilk as well as their parroting flocks) who in fact are ideologically driven – along with many politicians. And I'm all for legitimate scientific research, including research whose findings happen to take issue with AGW. What I don't respect though is “research” done by shills for energy companies, oil companies who then try to hide the fact. So let the research continue, regardless of whether it supports or debunks AGW, but let it be objective, professional, and undesiring of any outcome but the truth. My personal belief is that there is supporting evidence for human created warming, but that doesn't mean I don't also think natural cycles play a part. There is much we still don't understand about climate, although we are learning more all the time.

  13. My personal belief is that there is supporting evidence for human created warming

    Actually that's another thing that makes me worry: the debate seems to be focused on a side show that doesn't really matter. Whether we heated the planet or it warmed up on its own doesn't make a whit of difference. The question is whether it's going to keep getting hotter, either with our intervention or without it. The two sides seem to be picking a fight over the past, as if to deliberately sour any working relationship about the future.

  14. I knew it wouldn't be long before the Faithful would make fools of themselves. It remains to be seen how much this conference will resemble a typical UN “conference”-style circus. I just hope the damage that the catastrophist-collectivist Faithful seek, in their stupidity and craving for power over others, will be duly limited. The EPA's latest stunt is a related hint that stupidity and power craving reign firmly right now.

  15. Dr. J, it's the same show since the Sixties, with the same “solutions” to the popular “crisis” [sic] of the present. That it includes corruption of science by politics, and involves PC suppression of dissent and true reason (about the ever-familiar “solutions” possibly more than the bogus “crisis” chosen this time), as well as exploiting the gullible and the morally “challenged.”

  16. Well, now I'm confused, JSpencer:

    Of course the climate scientists whose behaviors were revealed in the emails didn't exactly help their own credibility, but they were under the naive (in this day and age) assumption that their personal communications were private and would never be exploited for political purposes.

    How in the world could they have been working under the assumption that those communications were private when some of the emails described ways that they needed to circumvent FOI laws?

  17. I'm still on the fence regarding global warming. I've seen nothing anwhere near conclusive. I think the efforts should be directed towards known polutants and putting stricter requirements on emissions of them. lobal warming only issues should wait until something can actually have enough factual basis to justify hitting a panic button like some have done. Deforestation in the Amazon concerns me much more , its related but seperate, and the detrimental effects can actually be proven here.

  18. LOL AR You didn't include this in your Hannity meme:

    As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change “Truth Squad.”

    My guess is that the percentage of attendees in the private jets in limos will be very small. But percentages and statistics are math and science, something the deniers ignore while mouthing the Inhofe ignorant meme.

  19. As I said, “naive”. Also, as I said, I'm glad this info came out… even though hacking isn't exactly a practice we condone.

  20. “Scary words scare children, until there are provable scary facts that lead to a credible conclusion and probability I wont hide under my bed.”

    Bush and his ilk certainly were succesful in scaring a lot of “children” enough to hide under their beds–enough to stick their heads in the sand.—Iraq—

  21. But “naive” implies that they didn't know that their communications (as members of a publicly funded venture) would be subject to FOI requests. Their own emails indicate that they did know.

    Sorry to quibble, but you're cutting them too much slack to attribute their actions to naivete.

  22. Gee, I never thought of the Telegraph as a tool for Hannity, but frankly I wouldn't know, as I have never watched him.

    You much more about him than me, I am sure.

  23. AR Here is a similar take to the Telegraph:
    http://blog.buzzflash.com/greenisgood/025


    “So many different nations” may be an understatement, though. How many people are flocking to Copenhagen in the next few days to show their support? Leaders from 192 nations translates into 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders. The Danish capital will also be blessed by the presence of celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah and Helena Christensen.

    From supposedly “green” celebrities, this kind of hypocrisy is normal (John Travolta, who once encouraged the British public to do their bit to fight global warming, owns five private jets alone). Many leaders will be flying in on their own, as well. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), minority leader on the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works, will be flying in on his own private jet to spearhead his anti-climate change “truth squad.” Knowing his opinions on climate change, his lax use of carbon emissions may not be surprising.

    Are celebrities like DiCaprio and Travolta frickin idiots and hypocrites, of course. But don't discount the conference because stupid actors tag along, and dump tons of CO2…

  24. When they hold a climate change crisis conference that does not require 1,200 limos and 140 private jets, then I might take it more seriously.

    And what does that have to do with the validity of the science? What a ridiculous argument! You don't like what some of the people are doing, so that means the science must be bad!?! So if some silly diplomat or celebrity like DiCaprio told you not to shoot yourself in the head, would that be a reason to pull the trigger?

  25. Bush and his ilk certainly were succesful in scaring a lot of “children” enough to hide under their beds–enough to stick their heads in the sand.—Iraq—

    Full agreement here. I dislike politicians using fear to push an agenda whether it be Iraq, Death Panels, bailouts, the Stimulas Package, healthcare “reform”, etc. The GOP and the Democrats are both grossly guilty of this, its very imature are deserving of scorn.

  26. What a ridiculous argument! You don't like what some of the people are doing, so that means the science must be bad!?

    No, it has no bearing on the science. The Copenhagen talks are political, not scientific. The people there are supposed to be kicking off our new lives of emissions austerity, and their profligate conduct sets low expectations for the outcome. The Hollywood types in attendance confirm the impression the event is primarily a show.

  27. Very good, Dr J. You get it.

    Too many on the Left confuse the science of global temperature trends with the politics of Global Warming.

  28. Too many on the Left confuse the science of global temperature trends with the politics of Global Warming.

    Actually, there is no confusion. The science says there is a problem. Politics is a means of addressing the problem. Politics is also imperfect and practiced by flawed people, many of whom are hypocrites. At least they are trying to address the problem, despite their many flaws.

    On the right, we get either denial or criticism of proposed solutions, without any useful suggestions for how to address the problem. I will happily take flawed people, who recognize there is a problem and are trying to figure out what to do about it, over the useless or destructive alternative.

  29. Well said. As much as politics play a part in the big picture, they are periperal to the issue itself, and can distract from it when people lose their focus… whether by intent or not.

  30. JSpenser

    I think you and ZZZ confuse political consensus and scientific consensus. You have time and again made the statement (paraphrase) that the science of Global Warming is settled. I would ask you to explain how manipulating cherry picking proxy data and data manipulation is scientific.

    If Cheney et al cherry picking of WMD data is wrong, (and I think it was), how can you not also see that changing paleo-climate data is not also wrong?

    I'm trying to address this outside the usual rock-fight, and I hope you will do the same.

  31. This has been addressed, repeatedly, in other threads and other coverage. Research from ONE group (the group who cherry picked their data) does not mean a scientific consensus. If theirs was the only research out there, I wouldn't consider the science settled. However, their work is just a few studies OUT OF HUNDREDS. The consensus is built out of HUNDREDS of other studies. So yes, the email controversy throws the work of those British scientists into question. However, it doesn't throw into question the HUNDREDS of other studies showing climate change.

  32. I think you and ZZZ confuse political consensus and scientific consensus.

    To address this point specifically, no, we don't. There is no political consensus. There is PLENTY of scientific consensus. Scientists quibble about the degree to which climate change is anthropromorphic, some think a little, most think a lot. They don't doubt that it is happening and they don't doubt that humans are contributing to one degree or the other. Pundits, politicians, and business leaders (including the 'scientists' on their payrole) doubt that it is even happening. These people are a political constituency, not a scientific one. The lack of consensus is ENTIRELY political.

  33. ZZZZ

    The IPCC used the cherry picked proxy data furnished by Mann and his famous hockey stick. This proxy series along with Jones, and Briffa constitute the basis most all historic climate measurement. These are also the guys that are implicated in the Emails.

    If all other studies work from the baseline readings in these series, how can you say independent scientistific finding are not affected?

    The IPCC reports shows graphs of these series, but no mention is made that the beginning of the series, the little ice age is removed at the beginning, not does anyone mention that the end of these series are removed from the hockey stick graph because they all show downturn in temperatures that appear to clash with the meme proposed for skyrocketing global warming.

    If these downturns in the latter part of the 20th century are too low, all previous approximated temp data derived from them as baseline is also too low. If temps were actually higher in the past, a good chunk of the upward trend evaporates.

    I don't believe anyone has successfully explained that away because until very recently, NOone knew that Mann had truncated the series and over-layed instrument data.

    There are a couple to start with
    thanks for answering.

  34. Here is a good site that debunks common criticisms of the 'hockey stick'. They site their souces, so you can go and read the original source material.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2

    Let me also just add that climate researchers aren't the only ones who provide evidence of climate change. You are finding plenty of compelling evidence in other fields: geologists, plant researchers, biologists studying animal migration patterns and species extinction, oceanographers, scientists studying glaciers, and on and on. Climate effects a lot of things. This is MUCH bigger than some stupid hockey stick.

  35. Careful HemmD. Heretics have been known to be burned!

    Although that would release carbon, so maybe not this time.

    Hmm.

    Maybe GW heretics get frozen in glacial ice!

    Wait. Nope, it is all melted already, or will be in the next couple of weeks, so that won't work either.

    Well, still they will think of some nasty, but eco-friendly, way to take care of YOUR sort (mine, too). Watch out for people wearing Birkenstocks.

  36. Well, still they will think of some nasty, but eco-friendly, way to take care of YOUR sort (mine, too).

    Absolutely. We will sell you coastal and ski resort property at inflated prices and use the cash to buy up all that rich northern farmland. When you are hot, poor, and complaining about inflated food prices, we'll say, “Capitalism, B1tches!”

  37. HemmD, if you're going to paraphrase me, then at least make an effort to be accurate since I don't appreciate being mischaracterized. Perhaps you could avoid doing so by reading for greater comprehension? Never have I once said the science is settled. My position has always been that research needs to continue, and although I do happen to believe there is more evidence for AGW than not, and while I do tire of opinions that are long on heat and short on light, I hardly think the book is closed. As for cherry-picking, that is exactly the sort of tactic I see the denial crowd (not to be confused with legitimate skeptics) engage in all the time, so there is no small irony in your bringing it up. Again, you need to pay closer attention to what is actually posted here and not assume intent. Try quoting me next time and you'll save yourself from going so far astray. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, just ask, I'll be glad to help clarify.

  38. Zzzzz -

    Well played, sir!

    :-)

  39. Can someone take a break from the hockey-stick-or-hokey-stick argument to answer a question that actually matters?

    Suppose America spends 10 trillion dollars to reduce CO2 emissions over the next two decades. That's $33,000 per man, woman, and child. Add it up for your own family and visualize writing a check for it. Oh, plus you'll need to pay part of Kathy's share.

    What do we get for that? Do we stop global warming? Do we buy delays in temperature increases? How much, 10 years? 5 years? Are all the people and coastal lands and crops and species and icebergs that are otherwise doomed merely doomed a bit later? How much more will it really cost to save a few?

  40. Dr J, with all due respect, I think your fears on that score (the monetary aspect) are unfounded. There simply isn't enough political will on the part of either party to commit that level of resources to an issue that remains so contentious. IF however, as research continues, we discover that AGW is a greater threat than previously thought, and this becomes painfully obvious even to the folks who now scoff at it, then 10 trillion will be a small enough price to pay – assuming the trend is reversable. Another scenario is that AGW will be found to be a bust, everything will be hunky dory, tremendous humiliation will be heaped on it's believers, and Al Gore will have to go into hiding. Another scenario is that it is real, gets worse, and humans end up being too contentious, divisive and stupid to do anything about it. Stay tuned…

  41. Your fears on that score (the monetary aspect) are unfounded.

    Those aren't fears, JS, I'm just posing a question. *The* question, really: how do the costs of reducing emissions stack up against the benefits?

    $10 trillion might indeed be a bargain, or it might be a futile mugging of needy people who are struggling to get by, I have no idea. You clearly don't either, and likewise scientists have only guesses and speculations.

    Yet this is the call the politicians in Copenhagen have to make. Given the big gaps in our information about how the climate and the world might evolve over the next century and the enormous weight of human welfare at stake, these negotiations are going to be extremely controversial. It's quite proper that they are.

  42. JSpenser

    I see you failed to address the issues I brought up, but decided to rail against a paraphrase. If you'd care to address my points, I solemnly promise to only use your exact words going forward.

    The three paleo-climate proxies have all been shown to cherry pick only some data points that reflect the authors predetermined theme, and their use by the IPCC first and subsequent reports show graphs where parts of these series were truncated both at the beginning and end of the series to maintain the meme. Maintaining meme's is not science.

    Perhaps you should take the time to compare the first and later graphs used in the IPCC's summaries, you know, more careful reading is a valuable tool for all of us.

  43. ZZZZZZ

    ” the degree to which climate change is anthropromorphic (sic), some think a little, most think a lot. “

    Ah there's the rub, isn't it. If the paleo series is flawed and shows past temps too low, and current ground data algorithms to remove “heat sink” temps from urban stations is also too low, the spectacular rise in temps touted by the AGW crowd shrinks to a miniscule amount. Antro-induced temps are the sole reason claimed by AGW for all temperature increase in the past decade; no water vapor factor, no cloud cover factor, no lack of sun spot activity, no nothing but bad men doing bad things.

    No accountancy for the above variables is no science. Statistics at their best are not science. Manipulating raw data, removing sections of the historic record, and hiding natural trends in the presentation of findings isn't scientific either. Consensus through manipulation is politics. I suggest you look objectively instead of following your party line.

    And just so you know ahead of time, I'm probably more progressive than anyone you wish to compare me to, so nix any idea that this is political for me. Both you and JSpenser's rhetoric assumes all who disagree with AGW is a Palin/Bush loving right wing nut. Sorry to disavow you of that assumption.

  44. Dr. J, your question is of course a valid one, and you're right, neither of us has an answer to it. This is exactly why research needs to continue in a more open and professional climate. Climate research and “debate” has now been tainted to some degree on both sides, and yet all the physical evidence for warming continues to mount. The extent to which this warming is caused by human activity, the questions about the rate at which warming is occuring, and the extent to which we can do anything about it continue to be the critical questions we need to find better answers for.

  45. Suppose America spends 10 trillion dollars to reduce CO2 emissions over the next two decades. That's $33,000 per man, woman, and child.

    When someone said there were WMD's we spent $3 trillion to remake Iraq into a Western democracy, it didn't work. I'd rather save polar bears and coral reefs than remake the Mideast injto a Western Christian region…

  46. Antro-induced temps are the sole reason claimed by AGW for all temperature increase in the past decade; no water vapor factor, no cloud cover factor, no lack of sun spot activity, no nothing but bad men doing bad things.

    No it isn't! We KNOW human beings are contributing to the problem. We don't know how much. However, you are ABSOLUTELY mistaken that scientists have ignored the impact of all those other things. This is what drives me CRAZY about global warming deniers. You guys act like, when most of you know almost nothing about atmospheric sciences, people who have spent their lives studying it aren't considering the impact of obvious things… like there isn't plenty of research into this area. The studied impact of ALL of those issues does NOT account for the degree of warming we are seeing. This has been debunked over and over again.

    I suggest you look objectively instead of following your party line.

    I certainly have. I've read a lot of this research, rather than listening to a bunch of pundits and people making scientific sounding claims which they know are deliberately misleading in order to spur a fake debate. I also am not happy about the work of those British scientists. What you seem to refuse to accept is that if all of their work was scrubbed from the scientific record, the case for global warming would still be overwhelming. I will say this AGAIN. The evidence doesn't just rest on climate models.

    Both you and JSpenser's rhetoric assumes all who disagree with AGW is a Palin/Bush loving right wing nut.

    No again. I don't assume that. However, I don't think it is incorrect to point out you have allied yourself with the Palin/Bush loving right wing nuts on this issue.

  47. HemmD, in addition to what has already been addressed in this thread, I hope you took a look at the link Zzzzz provided a dozen posts back or so, as it addresses some of your concerns.

    You might also enjoy reading this commentary, which I believe takes a reasoned approach to the business – without any propagandizing:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/

    This is an issue that requires looking at the big picture, not just bits and pieces that might serve to vindicate whatever position we might choose to adopt.

  48. I'd rather save polar bears and coral reefs than remake the Mideast injto a Western Christian

    I might suggest keeping us from getting blown up is just as worthy a cause as keeping us from drowning or baking. A better lesson to take from Iraq is that panic is the surest way to buy ourselves a boondoggle. Biofuel subsidies, anyone?

  49. This is exactly why research needs to continue in a more open and professional climate.

    Ah, now you want climate change? :-)

    The way to get it is to focus on points of agreement rather than points of disagreement, especially peripheral ones. Things everyone probably can agree on: We ought to continue to fund climate research. We ought to fund investment in alternative energy.

    Where the political debate should focus is on what carbon reduction measures make sense–that is, are justified by the cost/benefit understanding we do have. Hopefully we can agree it's neither politically possible to roll the world economy back to 1900, nor do we have the cost/benefit justification to do so.

  50. The IPCC used the cherry picked proxy data furnished by Mann and his famous hockey stick. This proxy series along with Jones, and Briffa constitute the basis most all historic climate measurement.
    Four groups agree on AGW and come to their conclusion with DIFFERENT data.
    http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-global-tempe

Submit a Comment