Oregon Public Television ran a show that showed a map of the states and whether the State Climatologist was (1) a Skeptic, (2) a Non-skeptic, (3) Both/Neither/Won’t Say (Huh?), (4) Did not reply, or (5) The office is vacant.
But a subsequent discussion in the listserver of the Association of American State Climatologists revealed that few had been contacted and their views were simply “gleaned” from what the producers “thought” their views were. They noted that “many replied that their position was more nuanced--that they believe the Earth is warming as a result of both natural variability and human contributions.” “That was what they meant by ‘both’,” said Delaware State Climatologist Dr. David Legates. “I’m not sure what the ‘neither’ position could have been or why both were grouped with ‘won’t say’. A subsequent discussion in the listserver of the Association of American State Climatologists revealed that few State Climatologists were actually contacted.
“The truth of the matter,” said Legates, “is that most ‘skeptics’ believe the Earth is warming as a result of both natural variability and human contributions. As one listed as a ‘skeptic’ by Oregon Public Broadcasting and not contacted for my opinion, I would argue that I should be listed in the ‘Both/Neither/Won’t Say’ category--but by them, the correct response would have been ‘No Reply’ since they never received one from me.” Another very prominent critic of catastrophic manmade global warming, Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, is listed as a ‘Both/Neither/Won’t Say,’ and only six were listed as ‘Skeptic.’ “I believe it is journalistic carelessness at best,” said Russell J. Qualls, Idaho State Climatologist, “and intentional deception somewhere on the other end of the spectrum.” Qualls was listed as a “Non-Skeptic” on OPB’s map. See falsified map here.
By Peter Foster, Financial Post
The fate of the Earth hangs in the balance in Bali, but the issue is not whether humanity will succumb to a “climate crisis,” or how the international community might craft a successor to the tattered Kyoto Accord (Let’s call it KyoTwo). Bali is not about climate; it symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek—or pander to—political power under the guise of concern for humanity.
Just at the point where Marxism was being consigned to the dustbin of history, the more or less concealed power lust that had fed it found a new cause in the environment. The fact that the UN’s 1992 Rio conference followed hard on the collapse of the Soviet Union represented almost the passing of a poisoned baton. Capitalism had once been the enemy because it was alleged to make people poor. Now it was the enemy because of the alleged side effects of making them rich. The emissions of carbon-based industrial society would lead to a climate in turmoil:We would be beset by Biblical plagues of floods, droughts and monster hurricanes.
This simplistic narrative depended on carbon dioxide being the main driver of climate. Scientists who pointed that there were likely other more important factors, that climate science was in its infancy and that earth’s climate had varied dramatically long before the invention of the steam, internal combustion or jet engine, were not scientifically refuted; they were howled down as “deniers” or industry shills. Read more here.
By Ross McKitrick in the Christian Science Monitor
Climate change is one of the most complex topics in science. New insights arise every month. Key discoveries are anticipated in the next few years. Yet politicians seem to think we’ve learned everything there is to know about the climate. And they keep designing static policy plans based on that assumption.
We have seen the failure of this approach with the Kyoto Protocol. So as world leaders meet in Bali, Indonesia, this week to discuss a replacement treaty, they should keep this simple principle in mind: Good climate policy must be dynamic, not static, and this requires incorporating a learning process. Politicians like long-term commitments because they can push costs into the future. But long-term commitments are foolish when you are still awaiting key information about the nature of the problem.
Climate policy needs to shift from static to dynamic thinking. This requires tying policy to actual greenhouse warming. Anything else is like taking a shot in the dark. Read more of this sensible plan here.