Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
This post is the second of a two part series. Read the first installment, Unreported Emissions From Natural Gas Blow Up BC's Climate Action Plan.
Methane leaks from British Columbia's natural gas industry are likely at least 7 times greater than official numbers increasing the entire provinces' carbon footprint by nearly 25%. That's like putting 3 million more vehicles on BC's roads.
As...
read more
Comments
Is it possible to be ligitimately skeptical of AGW?
Glad you decided to add this as a blog. I added the entire content as a comment on another thread.
But the question stands. It puts AGW proponents between a rock and a hard place. If you answer yes, then that opens the door to allow skepticism to have a say, without being subjected to ridicule and name calling.
If you answer no, then that just means you are dogmatically closed mined. Just like religion is when it's orthodoxy is challenged.
Readers of Desmog watch the comments as they will be very telling. If no one replies, that's just as telling.
Yes
At least in certain areas where there still are uncertainties. However, the vast majority of so-called sceptics are not sceptics at all but are plain and simple deniers. Any scientist can easily differentiate between "sceptism" (heck, I'm a sceptic and want to check on all new information before I accept it) and deniers. The easiest way is to observe that deniers rarely refer to results found in the scientiifc literature but always refer to denier web sites. When they do refer to actual scientifc papers they usually cherry pick data which support their biased conclusions.
A rational rebutal of your link can be found at:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/25/new-media-same-as-the-old-media-politico-pimps-global-cooling-for-hill-deniers/
Good
Then do not lump me with these "deniers". I'm skeptical based on EVIDENCE I have read from peer reviewed papers. For example, the claim that hurricane intensity and frequency has been increasing because of AGW. The fact is, they have not. Even the IPCC says there is no AGW signal in the hurricane record. Yet, we hear over and over that hurrcanes will and have increased because of global warming. Or how about sea level rise. We continuously hear ridiculous numbers, such as 20 feet in 100 years, when even the worst it can be (according to a recent paper reviewed in RealClimate) in 100 years is 2 meters, and likely much less at 0.8 meters, because of AGW (Yet the IPCC is even smaller at 35cm in its worse case). Or that there will be more harsher and more frequent storms and tornados in a warmer climate. When Climatology 101 will show that the intensity of storms is dependant upon the temp and moisture difference between warm and cold fronts. Warmer Arctic will mean fewer and warmer cold fronts, hence it would be fewer storms. And on and on with many other items I can list.
You are becoming more and more of a denier with every post
Keep it up JR, your true colours are becoming more and more evident. Have you responded to my comments in an other thread yet (about what it would take to disprove AGW)?
Show us what is wrong with that list
Go ahead, show us where I'm wrong on those three items. And yes, I have replied.
Oh, and the skepetical scientists
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
Plus 2/3rd of geologists at a recent conference in Norway this year, and these guys coming this winter:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html
"The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. This year's theme, "Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled," calls attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report."
More denier nonsense
JR if you really want to be believed as a "sceptic" then stop ranting on about the denier nonsense. You show your true colour by the company you keep, and it is not very nice.
The Vampires Regroup!
Vampires Regrroup
Fanastic post of Global Warming and awareness. Very nice
Keep going on
Jobs for 15 year olds