WSJ publishes actual climate scientists' letter on climate science

Andys sez, "The WSJ just published a letter to the editor in response to their No Need to Panic About Global Warming editorial from last week. The response is signed by (GASP!), actual climate scientists. Who'd have thought that we should maybe ask them? Alas, it doesn't get the same editor's note at the top that the original article received mentioning that it is signed by real climate scientists. I guess readers will have to scroll all the way to the bottom for proof that this is, in fact, true expert testimony for a change."

Here's our previous note on this.

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate (Thanks, Andys!)

• [Ito Kagehisa]

  Oh snap!

  https://www.google.com/search?q=dental+health+heart+disease+related

  Right idea, wrong analogy.

  • [Snig]

    Not really.  Yes, the fields have an interconnection, but no sane dentist is going to tell you to come to them for your heart trouble. 

    • [Ito Kagehisa]

      Which is why it’s a bad analogy.  Because the fields of dentistry and cardiology turn out to have an interconnection.

      Another reason this part of the argument sucks is that peer review and professional reputation are shibboleths, extremely suspect as bad gatekeepers.  Such barriers to entry are highly valued by persons with a vested interest in preventing competition and fair market valuation of skill or knowledge.

      Just look at this statement: If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.  Where, exactly, did these experts perform the large number of operations, if they were not qualified to do so until after they had done them?  It’s illogical nonsense, of the sort you’d expect from insecure egos who fear any sort of citizen science.

      It’s indisputable that the WSJ is a front-line actor in the war against science, and a major booster of economically and politically motivated climate change deniers.  But this rebuttal argument fails hard when it attacks the qualifications of the prior letter writers.

      Ad hominem and argument from authority are not strong grounds for convincing hard-headed people.  Give them instead a simple way to confirm or deny the truth of your claims – give them an experiment they can perform and understand, or show them other hard evidence they can confirm for themselves.  Don’t just claim to be smarter and better looking than a guy who is telling them what they want to hear,  because that’s not going to work.

      • [wysinwyg]

        Another reason this part of the argument sucks is that peer review and professional reputation are shibboleths, extremely suspect as bad gatekeepers.  Such barriers to entry are highly valued by persons with a vested interest in preventing competition and fair market valuation of skill or knowledge.

        Such barriers to entry are also highly valued by persons with a vested interest in keeping crackpot conjectures, fraudulent research (esp. politically motivated research), and pseudoscience out of science.  Peer review and professional reputations aren’t perfect but I don’t think they’re “extremely suspect as bad gatekeepers.”  Do you have a suggestions for better gatekeepers?

        Where, exactly, did these experts perform the large number of operations, if they were not qualified to do so until after they had done them?

        So you’re arguing that because chickens come from eggs and eggs come from chickens there are no such things as either eggs or chickens?  The experts performed their first operations on cadavers in medical school, then spent several years playing second fiddle to more accomplished surgeons.

        There is such a thing as scientific expertise.  I don’t really see how you can argue otherwise.

        • [Ito Kagehisa]

          I never said there was no such thing as expertise; quite the opposite, in fact.  I am championing expertise.

          What I’m saying is that a piece of paper doesn’t make you an expert.  Someone else claiming you are an expert doesn’t make you an expert.  The testimony of your Old Boy’s Club does not make you an expert.  Wealth does not make you an expert.  Operating on cadavers does not make you an expert.

          Expertise makes you an expert.

          Here’s a peer-reviewed paper exposing the shibboleth of peer review:  Rennie D. Misconduct and journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, 2003

          A more accessible but similar treatment can be found here.

          Don’t mistake a flawed proxy for a canonical value.

• [howaboutthisdangit]

  It must be that editor’s last day at the WSJ – whether the editor knows it yet or not.

• [Lobster]

   The fact that they published it at all is surprising.

• [penguinchris]

  Well, good on them. It’s a very good rebuttal – much better than the previous one (the one they didn’t publish) and more than that, it’s a good piece to give to people to summarize the current state of the science and the consensus (and to get a sense of how consensus and dissent within a scientific field works, something deniers either don’t understand or choose to not understand).

  I recently discovered that my dad really doesn’t think human-induced climate change is real. As a geologist, I have the educational background to be able to truly understand the science (though climate is not my specific field) and he asked me once about a certain piece of counter-evidence deniers like to point out (one which is debunked) and I wasn’t able to change his mind about it. I’ll be sending him this link. It’s better, I think, than trying to argue over specific evidence because the deniers will never admit their evidence can all be debunked.

  • [Matthew Petty]

    But they would say that the debunking evidence presented by the “alarmists” is biased and unreliable. Can’t win.

    • [penguinchris]

       You’re absolutely right, but I think it’s better to be unrelenting than to give up and let them win the argument :)

      • [Matthew Petty]

        I completely agree. I’m glad I’m not on the front lines here, though. Must be very draining.

      • [Ito Kagehisa]

        Agreed.  And when you have been unrelenting for a couple of decades, you find out certain arguments just don’t work – and certain other ones do.

        For example:  enlist their religious authorities.  Many young clergy take the Judeo-Christian admonishment to be guardians of God’s creation very seriously, and will happily help you convince your right-wing parents that God wants them to reduce, reuse and recycle.  People are much happier when you agree with their minister than when you dismiss their faith-based reasoning process as anti-science claptrap.

        Another example:  move the argument to pollution and help them do the math for themselves on how much burnt gasoline goes into the atmosphere every day.  Showing them how smart they are usually works better than telling them how stupid they are.

        • [B E Pratt]

           ” Showing them how smart they are usually works better than telling them how stupid they are.”
          Thank you. This is something I need to keep telling myself.  But then again, it just really is difficult/impossible to argue with those that are simply willfully stupid….

• [Matthew Petty]

  The comments on that article are truly depressing. Basically, many people think these “so-called scientists” are politically- and funding-motivated hacks, pushing “extreme” agendas to keep themselves on the gravy train, and are not to be trusted. They don’t understand the science or the fully understand the evidence. Neither do I, but I would rather trust someone with expertise on the subject. “Deniers” are often much more clearly politically motivated.

  • [Mujokan]

     You can get a lot more gravy as a AGW-skeptic scientist. One paper and the speaking gigs from right-wing think-tanks  come rolling in. As opposed to e.g. being investigated by the attorney general of Virginia or having your private emails published on the web.

    • [ocschwar]

      $1500 per appearance at conferences of the Heartland Institute. Sweet gig, no?

      • [Christopher]

        This is something I’ve never been able to understand. First, I don’t know why people think climatologists are being paid to promote the idea that climate change is real. Paid by whom? And to what purpose?

        Second, isn’t it at least as likely that denialists are receiving money that influences their views? If climatologists can be bought so can denialists.

        Finally there was a discussion I had with my father about this once. He insisted there was no evidence of any climate change. I said, “So we should carry on the way we’re going until there’s measurable, and possibly irreversible damage that could affect all life on Earth?”

        He’s never brought it up again.

        • [Antinous / Moderator]

          First, I don’t know why people think climatologists are being paid to promote the idea that climate change is real.

          Blame-shifting. Reality orientation would require us to take responsibility for the problem.

          Here’s the mindset: My car doesn’t make pollution! That’s just propaganda. The government releases pollution into the air as part of their plan to take over!

        • [wysinwyg]

          First, I don’t know why people think climatologists are being paid to promote the idea that climate change is real. Paid by whom? And to what purpose?

          George Soros to destroy capitalism and install the New World Order.

          This has been another installment of Clue: Tinfoil Hat Edition.

        • [zyodei]

          “I don’t know why people think climatologists are being paid to promote the idea that climate change is real. Paid by whom? And to what purpose?”

          Eh? I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

          How many universities have Climate Change Institutes or departments? How many government agencies have the same? There are many thousands of people working on researching climate change; many billions of dollars budgeted to researching the topic. If the theory were not, indeed, true, they would all lose their jobs. That’s a powerful incentive.

          To pretend there is no money motive at all in supporting climate change is just daft.

          The profits to be made from climate change are vast: one of the largest new global taxes in a generation, for one; the creation of an enormous new derivatives market (carbon trading), which would be at least as large as oil.

        • [chenille]

          Funny, zyodei. Those are possible motives for governments, and even a cursory inspection shows they have been very uninterested in taking those sorts of actions. Exactly which administrations do you think have been causing this total lock-down in influence?

          Meanwhile, researchers have incentives to do research; their funding doesn’t dry up because they come up with unexpected results that could be pursued. Except for think-tanks like the Heartland Institute, which do pay for conclusions, and as it happens support most of the denialists.

          People keep suggesting climate change could be based on this sort of power cabal, but the evidence is always pure fiction. This is just one more example of people taking what they do wrong, and smearing their opponents with it.

• [Paul Renault]

  I use the same argument when I feel like tangling with born-again Christians or Witnesses at my front door:
  Would you ask a biologist theological questions?  No.  Well then, why do you rely on your pastor for information about evolution?

  • [Ito Kagehisa]

    They will probably answer “because my pastor has a direct line to Ultimate Truth”.  Which is a perfectly reasonable response, that destroys your entire argument, when considered from within their mental framework for understanding reality.  And that’s the only framework they have, unless you are going to help them find another.

    If you don’t fit your argument into their mental model, you aren’t really arguing with them, you are just browbeating them.  Which is an understandable response to door-to-door evangelism, certainly!  However the whole reason most sects send people door-to-door is to cultivate an us-vs-them mentality in the congregation, so unfortunately you are helping their cult leader whenever you are less than charming.

    Bringing it back around to WSJ, the publishers know what they are doing.  The idea, as revealed in Merchants of Doubt, is to attack the trustworthiness of scientific sources so that people will fall back on my team/your team reasoning, which is readily manipulated for economic and political gain.  You can’t actually change the facts every electoral cycle, so you don’t want people to trust anyone who is providing factual information.

    • [Uncle Geo]

      Money, power and religion are a potent cocktail. As much a I’d like them to come around on reality, it is simply not worth the effort to change their worldview as it is considerably strengthened by the God connection and huge sums of money spent on propaganda.

      The people I’m after are the ones who haven’t already had their brains stolen. And that takes one on one, boots on the ground activism.

    • [Paul Renault]

      Yes, I do get that response where they cite the pastor’s ominiscience. 

      This is why I’ve decided that from now on, I’ll use the tactic I’ve started using with phone spammers, shame them. 

      When I’m bored, I ask the phone scammers whether they like their job, what they feel when they look at themselves in the mirror in the morning, whether they feel good about earning a living trying to rip people off, and whether they feel bad about spending their whole work day lying to people.  If they haven’t hung up on me, I’ll continue by asking them whether they’re secretly afraid that they’ll lose their humanity because of how they earn a living.

      Next time, I’m going  ask the Christians at my door: “Why is it, as far as I can tell, that Christians lie so much, don’t have a problem with liars, and keep repeating “facts” that have been repeatedly debunked?”   I’ll cite examples.  And I’ll remind them that ‘Bearing false witness’ is a sin, on the same list as ‘Thou shalt no kill’.

      • [Ito Kagehisa]

        I bet you’ll reach some of them with that, hopefully get them to question their leadership.

        I’ve had some success persuading Xians they should support gay marriage with the “standing on the side of love” argument.  Their scripture specifically says love is more important than orthodoxy and that given a choice between promoting hate or love they must choose love or they are abandoning Christ’s teaching.  It’s right in the bible, so it’s an easy sell.

• [Uncle Geo]

  Interestingly, the deniers “logic” goes: If global warming is real it will cost business and perhaps government a lot to clean it up. I’m against adding regulations and costs to business and I hate the government. Therefore global warming must be false. I’ll go find someone with PhD in something who will say so and I’ll believe him.

  The WSJ probably could not ignore all those scientists but I bet they’ll publish a long train of letters to the editor hammering the scientists. What a world we live in. We need another Enlightenment.

  • [morcheeba]

    It’s sad that the GOP/Fox/Beck has turned this in to a political issue in the United States. I wonder if it’s a political issue in other countries…

    • [heng]

      Yeah, I noticed this – seemingly if you appreciate the problem of climate change, you’re a lefty.

    • [zyodei]

      Seeing how the proposed solutions that are put front and center are explicitly political, ie taxes and regulations, I think it is a political issue everywhere.

      • [Sean McCorkle]

        Rather: tax breaks as incentives for developing renewable energy resources:
        http://seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_incentives.htm

        for example.

      • [morcheeba]

        Good point, but that puts partially in the economic realm… they could be attacking it economically – arguing the best ways to solve it for the lowest cost – but, instead, we get Newt Gingrich viciously attacked from his own party for even thinking this is a real problem (and sitting next to a woman who has cooties)

  • [Monte Davis]

    At least in the US, there was a more specific hot button than “it will cost… a lot to clean it up.” Go back and scan the arguments of 1997-1998, when Congress would have no part of the Kyoto protocol: what was intolerable was the merest *suggestion* (there were no firm proposals at the time) that developing countries might be given more slack than the G8.

    Kyoto opponents went ballistic in no time flat: this was obviously a New World Order black-helicopter plot to choke our economy so China, India, Brazil et al could steam past.  And of course the Clinton administration, hating both America and free enterprise as it did, would be all for that. Sound familiar?   

• [Christopher West]

  There’s something to say about expertise. But attacking credentials is just another form of ad hominem logical fallacy.

  • [Jonathan Badger]

    Not really. The whole “ad hominem” argument only works if the arguments themselves are presented in full and people are educated enough to judge the arguments on their own merits. In a technical field this isn’t possible because most people simply don’t have enough background knowledge. In such cases the only reasonable thing  for the general public is to follow the consensus opinion of the relevant experts — and to realize while it is theoretically possible for contrarians to be right, in the real world they are far more likely to be crackpots.

  • [lafave]

    It isn’t an attack on credentials inasmuch as it is an attack on their competence to speak on a subject out of their field.  

  • [Shinkuhadoken]

    It’s actually not an ad hominem in the case of expert testimony to question whether the person really has credibility on the subject. Surely the words of someone who studied the environment for the last twenty years and got published in peer-reviewed journals over those findings could be deemed more trustworthy on the subject of climate change than someone who has cleaned teeth in the same amount of time.

    The issue is that climate science is not entirely settled science. There is no certain equation, such as 2+2=4, that can be discredited by saying my mother was terrible with numbers so how could I possibly be trusted to get that right (which is clearly an ad hominem attack).

    Thus, it falls to people who devote long periods of study to the subject to weigh in on what we can expect, and credibility is the only method we have to determine whose voice we can believe over whose we shouldn’t.

    • [Ito Kagehisa]

      Thus, it falls to people who devote long periods of study to the subject to weigh in on what we can expect, and credibility is the only method we have to determine whose voice we can believe over whose we shouldn’t.

      It sounds like you’re advocating blindly following a cadre of priests.  All you’ve done is substitute white lab coats for black cassocks.  “The ways of God, um, I mean Science, are beyond my ability to comprehend, I must follow the dictates of the Pope, um, I meant Hawking.”

• [Monte Davis]

  Denialists don’t understand that science offers rewards for successful dissent as well. Nothing intrigues a young scientist more than new data or a new line of reasoning that really does challenge conventional wisdom — and if it pans out, nothing brings attention and career opportunities faster.

  I suspect that those who believe the “AGW establishment” ignores doubts and suppresses dissent are projecting how their own businesses — and ideologies — work.   

• [itsgene]

  Um – I *do* consult with my dentist about my heart condition, because gum health directly impacts heart health. My dentist concentrated on improving my gum health, which lowered my cardiac risk. I don’t ask her to perform heart surgery. But she has a role to play.
  Just sayin’ – it’s a complex, interconnected world out there and too many people are bent on breaking things down into simple chunks when what we need is recognition of the whole.

• [TheMadLibrarian]

  My dentist has been on my case for the last 2 years about high blood pressure.  The problem is that whenever I get it checked by my regular doctor, it’s usually 20 or more points lower than when the dentist checks it.  So who’s right?  There are a number of factors, but considering my doctor uses an actual sphygmometer, and the dentist uses a snap on wrist cuff, I think I’ll trust the doctor in that case.

  That’s my personal comment on why not all scientists are created equal.

  • [Snig]

     There’s also the phenomenon of “white coat hypertension”.  Folks test higher when there’s some anxiety, and not everyone enjoys the dentist.  I’m also suspicious of the wrist cuff being less accurate than the sphygmomanometer. Full disclosure: I have to look up that damn word every time I use it. 

• [Kevin611]

  A bit of advice for engaging sceptics about climate change: don’t compare them to holocaust deniers.

  If you call someone a denier or denialist you have already lost the ability to have a frank and rational discussion.

  Yes, I realize there is an argument to be made that climate change is worse than the holocaust.

  You will never turn get someone to see your point of view by comparing them to a nazi ornazi sympathizer.

  • [Mujokan]

     I had not made the connection before. I don’t use the term myself, but I don’t think there is any intention to call them “equivalent to holocaust deniers”. Some people are particularly sensitive to the topic, as we saw with the stories here about the Crass logo. Looking on the wiki page for climate change denial, there is only one reference to an anti-AGW commentator making the link.

    • [Kevin611]

      That’s what it means. I’m sure that a quick search engine query will give you plenty of news articles in which proponents of man-made climate change make that comparison.

      I know it sounds pedantic but, Wikipedia should not be used as primary source.

  • [wysinwyg]

    Don’t call them sceptics.  They’re dogmatists, not sceptics — sceptics actually pay attention to relevant scientific evidence.  Just like Holocaust denialists ignore relevant historical evidence.

    Pointing out that they’re acting like Holocaust denialists won’t get them on your side, sure, but in most cases that’s a lost cause anyway.  Have you tried arguing with any of these people?  Sometimes the best way to change people’s minds is to make it clear that certain points of view are ridiculous or contemptible rather than trying to prove they’re factually wrong.

  • [greebo]

    The term denialist is entirely appropriate, because these people have all the same pathologies as those in denial of their addictions to drugs, alcohol, etc. And of course, climate change denialism is typical of people who are addicted to fossil fuels and unwilling to admit it.

    Arguing with someone who is in denial is generally a waste of time – they usually need professional therapy.

  • [onepieceman]

    This was the very reason I started getting sceptical about AGW. If the theory is so sound, why traduce opponents by associating them, not very subtly, with genocide sympathisers? It’s a useful rule of thumb that ad hominem arguments are usually made by the weaker party. Now, of course in this debate, they’re freely used on both sides, but I’d still give the AGW crowd the edge on this. “Warmists” doesn’t have anywhere near the same venom.

    • [Kevin611]

      In my experience name-calling is not conducive to debate or discussion.

      Yes, it is important to have some type of nomenclature to avoid confusion, but “warmist”, “denier”, and “alarmist” are too charged with negative connotations. My own solution is to use “proponents” or “opponents” of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/ climate change theory.

      It’s not perfect, but it works for me because I always make an effort to “talk” on the Internet in the same manner as I do in direct communications.

      I hate flame wars that are more about having the last word, as opposed to adding some type of substance to a discussion.

      • [chenille]

        The problem is terms like skeptic and opponent miss what is really happening, because it’s not a controversy about the evidence. It’s a controversy created in spite of the evidence, by people who have interest in manufacturing doubt. Pretending they’re just another school of thought is already accepting their narrative.

        I don’t think they’re like holocaust deniers, but the great majority are a lot more like tobacco lobbyists or intelligent design supporters than like researchers. I’m open to other suggestions that make this clear, but I think it is important that kind of dishonesty is called out.

        • [Kevin611]

          The problem is terms like warmist and proponent miss what is really happening, because it’s not a controversy about the evidence. It’s a controversy created in spite of the evidence, by people who have interest in manufacturing doubt. Pretending they’re just another school of thought is already accepting their unsupported narrative.

          Most sceptics think the same way about you as you do of them. If you go to any sceptic blog and replace “warmist” or “alarmist” with “denier”, you will end up with a mirror image of the comments proponents of CAGW.

          And so, calling people names and impugning their intelligence and morals, are poor strategies for making a persuasive argument.

          Instead of assuming that all sceptics are coming from a place of ignorance and dishonesty, try to put down your own prejudices and just look at the evidence. You might be surprised. The sceptics I encounter are generally up to date on scientific research(if only for the purpose of rebutting said research).

          Many sceptics have legitimate issues with the theory of CAGW, an some just hate Obama. It’s as diverse a crowd. Many pro-CAGW folks think that there is a way for human kind to find a balance with the technological and natural world. Some Just think that the human race is a parasite on the planet. Neither side of the issue has a monopoly on ignorance or dishonesty.

        • [chenille]

          I’m not assuming skeptics all come from a place of ignorance and dishonesty. Rather, it is something I have noticed, time and again, in much of the so-called skeptical writing.

          Really simple example: the original WSJ letter repeated the line about CO2 being colorless, odorless, and natural, therefore safe. This happens to be wrong – large amounts of natural CO2 has killed people – but more to the point has nothing to do with anything; the question is about infrared opacity and concentration.

          It’s like the bit about evolution violating the second law of thermodynamics; completely devoid of merit, yet still brought up again and again. There are many other examples. And I would be devaluing facts and evidence to ignore these.

          The authors of the first letter, for instance, are simply disingenuous. That they likewise call the proponents Lysenkoists without evidence does not exonerate them. Because that’s what the “fair and balanced” approach, where each side is presented as equal no matter what, ignores: evidence.

          And sure, there are some crazy people on both sides, but looking at many papers, responses, and letters like this shows me they are rampant on one, while nearly all the serious work, modelling, and investigation is done by the other. That’s what manufactured controversies look like.

          You can politely pretend the two sides are the same despite this, and so keep up the pretense of being unbiased. Myself, I care about facts, and when I see the same falsehoods again and again I’m going to call those responsible liars.

    • [Antinous / Moderator]

      You do realize that people are already dying en masse because of climate change?  Millions of Pakistanis are in camps because of unprecedented flooding.  It will get worse.  The poor will die in the tens or hundreds of millions.

      • [onepieceman]

        To actually know this to be true, you’d need a full understanding not only of climate science, but of economics and politics as well. It’s a really big stretch to believe you’ve established a causal link.
        Now of course, just because you don’t have full knowledge doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have an opinion, but ultimately it will be better knowledge that will help guide our behaviour, and that isn’t best developed if sceptical opinions aren’t allowed to exist.

• [Abe Lincoln]

  “Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?”

  Yes.  As a matter of fact you should:
  Whoever came up with this tidbit wasn’t nearly as clever as they seemed to think.

  http://www.perio.org/consumer/mbc.heart.htm

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    Yes, but you don’t ASK your dentist about your heart condition; you TELL your dentist about your heart condition.

• [Sean McCorkle]

  Zyodai:                                                                                                                                                         
  How many universities have Climate Change Institutes or departments? How many government agencies have the same? There are many thousands of people working on researching climate change; many billions of dollars budgeted to researching the topic. If the theory were not, indeed, true, they would all lose their jobs. That’s a powerful incentive.

  To pretend there is no money motive at all in supporting climate change is just daft. 

  Don’t make me laugh!

  The research budget numbers are fairly easy to track down. According to this the 2012 budget request for climate change research was roughly $2.6 billion.

  Compare that to gasoline sales in the U.S.  From this chart, its about 360 million gallons sold per day, at what, $3.67/gallon times 365 days/year which amounts to $482  billion per year in gas sales, almost two hundred times the annual climate change research budget.  And gasoline sales are by no means the entirety of the fossil fuel economy!  There’s also coal, natural gas, diesel, heating oil, etc.

• [KanedaJones]

  If AGW was wrong, would it be OK to blow car exhaust into peoples’ faces?

  Seriously, the debate has already been framed by polluters — we should minimise pollution of any type, because the alternative, “If there is no AGW, we should be allowed to shit in your drink” is nonsensical.

  • [Ito Kagehisa]

    That’s the most insightful remark I’ve seen here.

    Talking about AGW is fighting a battle on grounds of your enemies’ choosing!

• [coastwalker]

  Look, its fine to say that you don’t care about the people who are going to be affected by rising sea levels like the Bangladeshis and that you don’t care about climate change. That’s a political position and as such can be debated.

  If you want to disprove the scientific method by name calling however then I don’t think your argument holds any water. More than that it probably means that your political arguments are based on a bunch of lies and that your agenda is almost certainly for your own benefit and you are not a member of human society. In fact you almost certainly should be locked up either in a prison for genocidal tendencies or a loony bin because you are a danger to society.

  After getting rid of all the psychopaths, lets see if we can get to the second level of the discussion where we debate how much global warming we should tolerate and how we are going to handle it.  I don’t know if mitigation and geo-engineering might not be the best solution but the way the discussion is being framed at the momment we will never get to discuss it.