The Conservative Reversal on Science

Magical thinking is no substitute for verifiable facts.


The 1980s and 1990s were prime time for environmental scares, many of which proved bogus. On one side were liberals, greens and professional alarmists who always assumed the worst. On the other side, many non-liberals chose to heed scientists who had studied the evidence. Time and again, the skeptics were right.

Remember the Alar scare of 1989, when Meryl Streep went before Congress to warn of a pesticide used on apples? There was much concern at the time, but it didn't pan out. An official with the National Cancer Institute eventually concluded the cancer risk from eating apples treated with Alar was "nonexistent."

How about silicone breast implants? The Food and Drug Administration took them off the market in 1992, but for no good reason: In 1999, the Institute of Medicine said they didn't cause breast cancer or other serious diseases.

There was acid rain, which allegedly was a catastrophe for lakes and forests in the East. The director of an exhaustive federally funded assessment, however, announced in 1990 that "the amount of damage is less than we once thought, and it's much less than some of the characterizations we sometimes hear."

Over and over, we saw a pattern. Environmental and public health groups with a leftward bent said the sky was falling; conservatives and libertarians (me included) asked for scientific evidence; and the science sooner or later debunked the fears.

Back then, those skeptical about environmental warnings deferred to learned people who knew the subject best. Alarmists stoutly ignored them while scrounging up a few experts who would take their side.

But that was another century. Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril—climate change caused by human activity. It's liberals and environmentalists who can point to a broad scholarly consensus for their claims. And it's the skeptics who now revile the scientists as stooges and liars.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is right in step with many conservative advocacy groups and commentators when he derides global warming as "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight." The conservative magazine National Review regularly heaps scorn on climate-change worries.

So does the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, which depicts it as an urban legend singlehandedly fabricated by Al Gore. Fox News … well, I'll let you guess.

This naysaying has had its intended effect. A Pew Research Center poll last year found that 53 percent of Republicans don't believe the earth is getting warmer, and 58 percent think scientists actually agree with them.

That is known as living in a fool's paradise. The consensus among experts, in fact, happens to be virtually unanimous on the other side. A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up.

Every major scientific group concurs. The National Academy of Sciences published a report last year reaching a firm conclusion: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems."

Groups such as the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science agree. So does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of scientists from around the world. At this point, disagreeing is like saying Willie Mays has no business in the Hall of Fame.

There are, of course, some scientists who express doubts about global warming. But what would environmental skeptics say if 97 percent of scientists solemnly announced that climate change is a massive pile of horsefeathers?

We don't have to ask, because we know from the past scares. In those instances, a solid scientific consensus was enough to settle the issue in their minds. This time, however, those who once urged opponents to defer to the experts are doing exactly the opposite.

They arrive at their position by reasoning backward: They reach a conclusion and snatch at any shred of evidence that justifies it. The climate change deniers don't like the idea of governments restricting greenhouse gas emissions, so they insist that these emissions are nothing to worry about, that scientists are corrupt and that it's all part of a socialist power grab.

They used to uphold respect for science. Now they prefer magical thinking.


NEXT: Caught on Tape

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yay, someone finally wrote a Reason piece saying what I say in every climate change thread:

    They arrive at their position by reasoning backward: They reach a conclusion and snatch at any shred of evidence that justifies it. The climate change deniers don't like the idea of governments restricting greenhouse gas emissions, so they insist that these emissions are nothing to worry about, that scientists are corrupt and that it's all part of a socialist power grab.

    They used to uphold respect for science. Now they prefer magical thinking.

    1. Narcissistic much?

      1. Not at all, I'm joyful that someone at Reason shares my opinion on the matter.

        1. Yeah, but they're wrong too, so...

          1. So being anti-magical thinking is wrong?

            That's an odd opinion.

            1. They're just mad because they don't like anyone redecorating their echo chamber.

              1. Turn the phone off bitch puddin.

                1. There's dumb, there's really stupid, and then, in a class by himself, is heller.

    2. Good morning heller!
      That is some narcissism I can appreciate.

    3. The fact that AGW believers have also had to resort to backward reasoning, appeal to authority fallacies and have not yet provided any verifiable prediction shows just how pervasive and destructive the vast denier conspiracy has been.

      1. Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy; sometimes it's a heuristic.

        If I want to find out whether feeding something (say grapes) to my dog will kill her, I don't need to provide proof to myself to answer the question. I just ask someone with "D.V.M." after their name and take their word for it.

        1. I just lost a very nice pet thanks to the ineptitude of someone with "D.V.M." after their name!

          1. You're totally right. Vets know nothing about the science of animal physiology. Your anecdote proves it!

              1. Hey Kroneborge nice contribution to the discussion!!!
                You're pissed because I have called you on your fucking abject stupidity in the past.

            1. Well smart ass I am just stating what another D.V.M told me!

            2. "You're totally right. Vets know nothing about the science of animal physiology" Vets do not know everything about anything! Both Vets and Doctors can be wrong and they are lots of times.

              1. See, either Vets never make mistakes or they don't know anything about animals. You assertion that they are human beings who could make mistakes is clearly absurd. Didn't you see, they have a DVM!!! Appeal to authority!!!1!!

              2. A better answer to your observation that medical professionals can be wrong is to consider if my multiple State and UK licenses make me smarter than you.
                The State says I am, it must be true. QED

        2. Sure.

          But what if the answer is, "we don't really know, but most dog computer models say it should be OK."

          Now what?

          1. I'd ask what factors were taken into account, what assumptions were included in the model, what supporting evidence there is for those assumptions, and what the resulting margins of error are expected to be.

      2. Not to mention lie about and hide data.

    4. "They arrive at their position by reasoning backward: They reach a conclusion and snatch at any shred of evidence that justifies it. The climate change deniers don't like the idea of governments restricting greenhouse gas emissions, so they insist that these emissions are nothing to worry about, that scientists are corrupt and that it's all part of a socialist power grab."

      This is exactly the kind of thing people should be doing in science. Looking for support for the contrary view. And it's doubly-important in politics too. You are nuts if you think people don't engage in science to prove something they think is already true. The first 99 times you do a calculation you will make a mistake. The first measurements will be dominated by the traffic noise outside or the oscillation in the wall current. If you don't have a dogged determination to get the answer you want you will never accomplish anything.

      And it's not about some bigoted suggestion that certain groups have mental flaws causing them to dislike science. It's about the risk associated with a conclusion (e.g. trillions in costs trying to correct the problem). The more the risk the important it is to consider the possibility of being wrong. The left is completely willing to dive into accepting global warming as the risk is to evil western countries and to oil companies. And of course the #1 villain and loser-to-be, history's greater monster, the USA. The right is averse to the conclusions for exactly the same reasons.

      And by the way does anyone remember missile defense? It was the LEFT that was so damn sure it was impossible, they just had to find an explanation why. If the right is anti-science apparently the left is anti-technology.

      And scientists act like a dumb herd just like every other field. Polls tell you what gets the most citations and funding.

      1. The hype about significant climate change being caused by man is almost certainly a load of bullshit.

        However, with regard to, "You are nuts if you think people don't engage in science to prove something they think is already true," it is important to note that scientists should seek positive proof - to prove that something IS, rather than that something IS NOT. The fact that lots of people who call themselves scientists may agree on something is NOT proof. This is the angle on which to attack this whole concoction of horseshit: Where's the PROOF?

        It's not up to us critics of hocus-pocus climate hoaxing to disprove the climate cult's apocalypse myth - it's up to them to prove its validity.

        You could tear apart the rest of their house of hooey by pointing out stuff like the fact that most of the so-called "scientists" held up on a pedestal by the climate hoaxers are persons who in fact have NO specialization in the physical sciences whatsoever. Most of them are policy wonks, political advocates, sociologists, economists, and so forth - and with agendas of their own. You could also point out that it isn't just the adherents of socialism that are attracted to climate hoaxing - it's crony capitalists as well. Ethanol, switch grass, algae fuel, windmills, solar panels, recycling, poisonous mercury-filled federally-mandated light bulbs - these are all BIG MONEY and jobs in the U.S. and around the world. There are people who pay their mortgages, buy 7-series BMWs, and take flights to exotic destinations on the other side of the world using the money they make in the "green" economy (of horseshit). But none of that matters, really. At the end of the day, all we have to say to the climate hoaxers is, "Where is the proof?"

        There isn't any. That's not to say that climate change doesn't happen. Obviously it does - but as an entirely natural phenomenon that we are powerless to stop. There is no proof that conclusively shows that mankind causes significant climate change. Without such proof, the predictions of the climate change crowd are irrational and more religious than they are scientific.

        Proof? Where is the proof?

      2. Ronny Bailey and Stevey Chapman have no idea what science is.

        1. We resemble that remark!

      3. "It's about the risk associated with a conclusion (e.g. trillions in costs trying to correct the problem). "

        Hmm, funny, I don't remember them offering any policy solutions in the article, merely pointing out the problem.

        Furthermore, there are things that could be done in a cost effective manner to reduce the risk.

        For example a net zero carbon tax.

        1. "Furthermore, there are things that could be done in a cost effective manner to reduce the risk.

          For example a net zero carbon tax."

          There is a most efficient way for technological and economic progress to proceed, and history has shown a free market is the best way to achieve that. By meddling with the rules you force the economy down a less efficient path. The "cost" is the difference between where we could have been and where we will instead will be. There is no free lunch with govt intervention.

          1. Therefore the solution to climate change is to cut taxes and slash spending.

            1. Climate change is not an issue for government. It needs to mind its own business.

          2. This is actually a sticking point for me. I like market solutions. I want private citizens and industries in charge of everything they can do more efficiently than government. But this... I don't know.

            I've wracked my brain trying to come up with a market solution for the externalities inherent in some acts. Ignoring for the moment the issue of climactic change altogether, industrial pollution really is a problem. Your freedom to dump waste solvents infringes on my right to not have my groundwater rendered undrinkable downstream. The question is: What is the Libertarian solution to this issue? How would it be enforced?

        2. "Hmm, funny, I don't remember them offering any policy solutions in the article, merely pointing out the problem."
          Good point. "They" are as worthless as you are stating a problem without a solution!

      4. snatch at any shred of evidence

        The Medieval Warming Period is one Godzilla sized shred to snatch at....rather then snatch at it I think I prefer to climb on top of it and piss on the alarmists from above.

    5. Then why do climate-hoaxer predictions of climate doom and gloom always fail to materialize?

      1. What does that have to do with my comment?

        1. How about because the models (GIGO) are the only thing that AGW relies on?

        2. It alludes to your claim that critics of the "Nature God Makes Air Hot...Give Silver and I Make Him Stop" theory (aka AGW) are using "magical thinking" to critique climate voodoo scare tactics. My retort calls upon you to explain why the doom-and-gloom predictions of AGW witch-doctors consistently turn out to be false? If anybody is engaged in "magical thinking" it is certainly the AGW cult.

    6. How do you explain the effort to prevent any studies that counter the man made climate change theory?
      read here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....nge-shock/

      1. I don't have to explain it, that has nothing to do with my comment.

        1. I zee nothing. Nothing!

    7. I'm with you, Heller!

      1. Shut up, bitch pudding!

    8. The climate change deniers don't like the idea of governments restricting greenhouse gas emissions, so they insist that these emissions are nothing to worry about

      I was skeptical of AGW before I was a libertarian.

  2. A second page with only two short paragraphs? Thankfully I visit reason with only cached images set to load, so I don't see all the ads in this blatant attempt to increase ad revenue.

    1. You must be new here.
      Two paragraphs is a lot more than usual, consider it a blessing.
      That didn't happen when Virginia Postrel was running this place.
      For a magazine called reason . . .

  3. Fuck, another example of the libthugtarians' attempt to hate science.

    Go suck of Koch, libby!

    1. That was a very cogent and well-thought out response. Congratulations.

  4. conservatives and libertarians asked for scientific evidence

    So did all other independent, rational individuals, regardless of political affiliation.

    1. Unfortunately what they get in return is numerical models that can only be validated by pointing to how well the fit the data that they were specifically written to fit.

      1. And the models can not even predict the past accurately.

      2. Great point

  5. Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril?climate change caused by human activity.

    What hippie chick's pants do you think Chapman is trying to get into w/ this article?

    1. They wear pants?

    2. As long as she's not the coveted "white chick with dread locks" type.

      1. You're talking dreadlocks on her head, right?

        1. I thought dread lochs described lakes that plesiosaurs lived in.

        1. Very few things disgust me. Congratulations... you managed to find one.

          1. Back when the TV music channels played music, I remember that song coming on a few times. If the remote wasn't readily available, I'd start looking for something hard to smash the screen with.

        2. Kind of funny how Linda Perry writes songs for singers like Christina Aguilera now.

    3. Ron Bailey's!

    4. "What hippie chick's pants do you think Chapman is trying to get into w/ this article?"

      No kidding. Environmental science is about as hard of a science as psychology. Hell, it makes psychology look objective and rigorous.

  6. Same phenomenon as gets most people who reason themselves into a position: you end up next to all the people who emoted their way there.

    Though sometimes I wonder.

    "Price levels" are found because people buy up all the cheapest goods, so the next buyer to come along finds the prices that are left. It's the illusion of a consensus on price formed by many people trying out ideas.

    When we look at a broad front of people trying out ideas now, we have the same illusion of a "conservative consensus" - aka "damn the research, I KNOW it's a scam!"

    Of course, what you're really seeing are the opiners who keep to that position after the most recent wave of data. Some are paid to have that opinion, some don't follow the research and just like to talk about it, some are skeptical because they remember all the bad science in the past, and some have a standard of proof that just hasn't been met yet.

    But we will always find these people because those who were convinced are no longer in that camp. Is the camp shrinking? Is it growing?

    Those who were convinced - what convinced them?

    ...I've got to stop thinking about Mises at 2 AM. Human Action just gets inside your head.


      Once again this whole thing is predicated NOT EVEN on the logical fallacy of consensus, but upon a false, deceptive portrayal of (the logical fallacy of) concensus.

      Stop ignoring every expert and every study that disagrees with you, and you have no argument.

    1. Is it morning links already?

      1. The link is on topic.

        1. I'll let it go on a technicality.
          I'm watching you.

          1. I'm in the john. Sure you wanna watch?

            1. You're not on the john?

            2. That's dedication.

          2. No one cares what you think cunt.

          3. Turn off the phone, bitch puddin.

            1. Swing and a miss.

              1. Turn off the phone, bitch puddin.

                1. Swing and a miss.

                  1. Come on bitch pudding, we both know you aren't smart enough to fool anyone. Turn the phone off like a good little girl and enjoy your ban. Soon you'll learn to live without being an annoying little cunt.

                    1. ...like me!

    2. Thanks for the linky.

      So the super-heated fusion reactor in the sky has an effect on our climate... who'd of thunk it.

      The 'science is settled' meme is especially annoying, because it usually winds up boiling down to, "well the majority of scientists think it is so, so it must be."

      There were a million Lamarks but only one Darwin.

      1. I didn't know that.

      2. ...And Darwin was the only one whose ideas were supported by scientific consensus.

        1. Bullshit. Lamarck's soft inheritance was widely accepted, until it wasn't. Darwin himself posited Lamarckian inheritance as part of his pangenesis theory (gemmules). This sort of thing happens all the time in science. (Ironically, more recent studies have shown that some acquired characteristics may be passed on after all. But how can that be! The science was settled!)

          1. No, it wasn't. Lamarckianism was popular because it was basically rewarmed folk wisdom that already existed in the minds of many. But it was never a dominant theory among scientists.

        2. Kinda like AGW?

        3. What Fatty said, plus I think you are going out of your way to miss the point... Science is not a democratic process. It does not matter who agrees with you or how many people agree with you, if your science is repeatable and your results are consistent and correct, even if you are the one voice of dissent, you have a viable theory.

          1. In the primary practice of science, experiment and theory rule. But in the dissemination of science (sort of the secondary market of science), support from others is key.

            The point was not that Darwin was right because he had consensus, I was simply responding to 35N's Lamarck comment.

            1. The truth, what about the truth? Is this Chapman person a Journalista/Chicago Way/ juiceboxer wanna-be Ezra Klein-er? That vomit would be much shorter if only the truth was considered.

    3. Has the AGW argument imploded?

      It is hockey season already?

      1. Isn't it always hockey season?

        1. You're right! Time to break out my stick!

          (Seriously, though, the Habs better not lose to Boston this year.)

          1. Fuck the East - Go Wings

            That is all.

            1. Fuck the Wings, go Canucks!


          2. If they do you can be sure they'll break out the Mounties again. Fucking statists.

              1. I love it when the Reason admin deletes a troll but leaves my reply and moves it upthread...

                1. Do you. Do you love it?

    4. Yeah right,

      Like the sun has anything to do with climate.

      You knuckledragger just won't give up, will you?

    5. It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate.

      The Sun affecting the Earth? That does sound like a conspiracy theory.

      1. As always Watts-Up-With-That has a better explanation than Reason:


  7. "A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up."

    Wrong. That's not what the study said. The survey was sent to 1500 scientists, of which about 75 responded, and 73 of those 75 answered yes to the question (paraphrased):

    "Do humans play a significant role in global warming?"

    But, like usual, they never quantified what "significant" means. Is it 75%? 50%? What about 10%? Is 10% significant? If I was responding, and felt that it was 10%, I'd probably call that significant. But most alarmist are happy to let the public think "significant" means 95%. That's why they don't define it further.

    1. Beyond the vagueness of the concept of "significance", why did so few respond? Is there a reason which wasn't controlled for, or was it just random? What do the 90% who didn't respond think?

      Ironic that you chose to reference such a poor piece of science as that survey in order to justify the science behind AGW.

    2. Link? Is this the same one that Curry or Watt had up awhile back? I don't remember any where only 75 responded. Sounds very low.
      Do you really think that many "climate" scientists would remain silent?

      1. It was not 75 responding, it was 75 responses were "selected" from the respondents. Not random

  8. The problem is not the scientists' conclusions.

    The problem is the politicians' proposed solutions, all variations on the theme of throw-endless-buckets-of-money-at-my-pet-project-or-we're-doomed. And I think we've all heard that tune put to use in the service of all kinds of dodgy agendas.

    I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question of how the supposedly progressive section of the industrialized world plans to get the likes of China to play nice.

    1. ^^This^^

      And - I am EXHAUSTED (not just "tired") of the "consensus" meme. There's certainly some evidence of human contribution to warming. There's also other evidence that suggests otherwise. There's no "consensus" about it, definitionally, since scientists do not all agree on anything. ("majority" =/= "consensus")

      Need I remind folks that there was a virtual "consensus" that the Earth was flat not so long ago (in the grand scheme of things)? And that "everyone" was wrong about that?Yeah, apparently we need to remind people of that.

      There is damned sure no "consensus" about "Manmade Global Warming" (or even "Climate Change" if you prefer). And "what to do, if anything" is the real question - not whether or not warming exists or why it's happening if it does exist.

      So fuck off, Chapman. You're usually better than this, but you sucked it up today. Way to Yglesias/Klein the article, dipshit.

      The End

      1. Eighty odd years ago there was a consensus that retards, Jews and niggers were polluting the gene pool, and something needed to be done to save the human race.
        The Supreme Court approved the sterilization of tens of thousand of retards in mental institutions.
        Laws were put on the books to prevent interracial marriage.
        Then some German dude took it a little too far.
        All based upon scientific consensus.

        1. There never was consensus on eugenics. Many, many people strongly opposed it, they were simply outvoted, which isn't exactly the scientific method.

          1. You mean the "deniers." They were not true scientists.

          2. "they were simply outvoted"

            Isn't that what consensus means?

          3. The vast majority of eugenicists believed that poor genetics were the cause of problems in the human gene pool, and produced a very large number of studies that "proved" it. They were also big on pushing policy prescriptions (something must be done!) which were extremely successful. 30 states passed involuntary sterilization laws, and 10's of thousands of people were sterilized in the US alone.

            1. Well they were right inasmuch as there can be a "problem" in the human gene pool.

              The thing is that given the concepts of self-ownership & non-aggression, that is not a problem for me.

            2. "30 states passed involuntary sterilization"

              Fortunately, the opposition to involuntary sterilization has been gotten around by convincing large numbers of "undesirables" to voluntarily kill their own children. Same result, different means.

              1. The dirty little secret of the pro abortion movement.

      2. There was widespread belief in the round-earth theory during the Middle Ages. Many of the ancient Greeks believed it, too, and one of them even did a calculation about the earth's circumference.

        1. They were flatness deniers.

        2. Also,"some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support?does not that description sound remarkably modern?"
          source: http://www.watchtower.org/e/200711/article_03.htm

          1. It's turtles, all the way down.

      3. Well said.

    2. China is currently cornering the market on solar tech. Both China and India are doing more than the US to address this issue. So how much longer are you going to justify our inaction by saying China should have to jump first? They already have.

      If libertarians have a policy solution, I'd love to hear it.

      1. Tony,

        here's the libertarian solution:

        If a company is polluting and doing something you think is contributing to global warming, DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM! If you think automobiles are the problem- RIDE A BIKE! TAKE THE BUS! Sacrifice convenience if it's more important to you than not.

        Now, if everyone cared, then BAM, problem disolves, right?

        It's pretty much the libertarian solution for most things. Funny how it's never tried without forcing others to go along...

        1. Ah, so there is no libertarian solution, just as I presumed.

          You know perfectly well that individual choices won't have any meaningful effect on the problem. And the effect is global, so I don't see how you expect all of its victims to be willing participants in the market.

          It's the definition of a problem that needs a major policy change to be addressed. Sorry that is inconvenient for your silly worldview. Stop believing silly things, because reality isn't going to change for you.

          1. How many police and secret police (excuse me - under cover) will your program require?

            BTW are you ready to go to war over China's CO2 production? No?


            1. What if they're ready to go to war with us over ours?

              1. At the rate China is building coal power plant, they won't be going to war with anyone over pollution.

        2. Nice in theory, really. The only problem I see is that those who would be most severely effected by a warming climate currently contribute the least to the problem.

          For instance: I currently contribute an inordinate amount to the problem, but by virtue of my latitude, elevation and the sheltered nature of the geography in my area I will be basically unaffected until warming is fairly severe. The only motivation I have to change my ways would be pure altruism towards people I will likely never meet.

          I don't trust any of my neighbors to display this blind altruism.
          I don't blame them for putting their own needs/wants first.
          I don't trust the government to dictate what changes I and they must make.

          So... I don't have an ideal solution. Nor am I sure one even exists. My hope is that, if we can get the fed's fingers out of as many energy pies as possible, the inherent advantages of some of the less dirty energy technologies will naturally result in an improved system.
          Market at work and all that.

      2. If you state-loving fuckwits have a policy solution, we'd love to hear it to the tune of another $500 million in taxpayer money.

        1. Nobody said it wouldn't cost anything. I fail to see why you think fixing a massive global environmental problem should be free before it's legitimate.

          1. I agree. What's half a billion in the grand scheme of the federal budget? Mere pocket change. And it turned out to have been a great investment, too!

            1. You guys are the apologists for the most wasteful use of money and resources imaginable: transferring them all to the wealthy elite so they can buy toys.

              You pretend to be penny pinchers, it's so amusing.

              1. Corporate welfare is good when we do it.

                1. ^THIS^

                2. Shorter libertarians: the only kind of welfare that's good is the kind that helps out the most successful.

                  1. I don't think libertarians are big on any sort of corporate welfare, Tony. Unless you consider allowing people to keep their own money, rather than having it forcibly taken from them and sunk into abject failures like Solyndra, to be welfare- which, being the morally deformed little twat that you are, you probably do.

                    1. Libertarianism is simply the flimsy philosophical justification for wealth distribution to the top.

                    2. Leftism is simply the flimsy philosophical justification for being a bed-wetting, pants-shitting control freak.

                    3. Here we go with the Tonyspeak again. Letting people keep their money is "redistribution." Orwell couldn't have written a better caricature.

      3. > China is currently cornering the market on solar tech. Both China and India are doing more than the US to address this issue.

        And that's an assertion you simply take at face value? Wow.

        Both China and India have corruption problems that make Nagin-era New Orleans look like Finland (or whatever the most honest nation on earth might be).

        1. What's your point? Therefore the US should maintain an unsustainable energy policy that will disrupt people's lives globally?

          1. Yawn.

            1. Funny how these a-holes never apply 'sustainability' to govt fiscal policy, and never apply the 'precautionary principle' to social engineering.

        2. Yeah given Chinas latest train fiasco I am not exactly fearful of chinese tech at this given time. Having been there much of the geen revolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors, and a healthy dose of propoganda that leftist in the west eat up.


      4. Post links Tony.

      5. China doesn't use solar for power. They sell solar to us. Instead they are building dams and coal plants for power.

        1. +1

          The "market" for solar power is largely a phony one. Environmental handwringers scurry about trying to get others to buy solar panels, a few would-be smuggers listen and buy, China makes solar panels, sell them to the smuggers and snicker as they count their cash.

      6. China is producing all the useless shit because stupid fuck Americans, read liberals, are buying it!!!

      7. Yeah, riiiiight. I, um, I'm gonna need a citation for this solar tech/market cornering/issue addressing.
        What's the name of that joint in Cali what sucked up a quick Obamabillion and went tits up yesterday?
        Did you get laid off?

      8. The market speaks:

        E Solar


  9. Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril?climate change caused by human activity. It's liberals and environmentalists who can point to a broad scholarly consensus for their claims.

    There was a broad scholarly consensus on most of the bullshit alarmism in the past, up until the point there wasn't. Taking scientific literature and blowing it out of proportion by relying on the small probability predictions at the end of the curve fed the alarmism. So you would expect a large pushback in the early '90s against AGW.

    Now we're 20 or so years into the real discussion of AGW and we still have a huge amount of skepticism. Sure, it could be motivated by magical thinking (it's probably a shockingly average number). It could also be motivated by a reaction to the assholes who tried to turn it into a "moral issue." Or it could be a reaction to the fact that we still don't have a working, testable model. Or it could be the very public failures of some climate scienticians to do basic research or take a class in statistics.

    1. The behavior of many prominent climate scientists (Mann, etal.) didn't help. I don't care if you sincerely believe that a theory is true. Trying to prevent dissenting views from being published is the opposite of scientific methodology. If the studies that dissent from your view are poorly designed, or if you've dealt with their objections, point that out - don't try to quash people from speaking.

      It's funny that AGW proponents like to trot out Darwin ('"denialists" are teh creationists'). Darwin used to vigorously investigate any fact that appeared to contradict evolution. Had the AGW "scientists" been similarly engaged, I'd have an easier time believing them.

      1. But, but, but.... They voted!

        It's the new scientific method.


        All that stuff about verifiable experimentation is too hard.
        Something could go wrong and contradict the assertion.
        It's so much easier to have a vote and mock any who disagree.
        And it's profitable as well.
        You wouldn't believe how much money the politicians will give you to "prove" AGW to be "correct".

          1. I'm down with the ridicule.

      2. [Darwin used to vigorously investigate any fact that appeared to contradict evolution. ]

        Which is why if he were alive today he may recant.

        1. The fact of DNA has proved all of Darwin folly. Inheritance is a totally false concept as is selection.

          We got them Darwinists on the run now. With a few simple assertions I have busted their argument wide open.

          1. Not so fast. Just because all living beings use the same code, and that the similarities in that code from being to being are greater the greater are their other similariteis, and characteristics in being's structures can be mapped one-to-one to that code, IS NO TEASON TO THINK THAT THE CODE MEANS ANYTHING!

      3. It's been conclusively proven that Mann ("et al.") were victims of a smear campaign. It could have been anyone. There is a concerted effort on the other side, driven by profits rather than science.

        All I see on this thread so far are a lot of lame excuses for not believing in science.

        1. What science?
          Science means following the scientific method.
          "Consensus" is not part of the scientific method.
          "Consensus" is part of the political method, not it ain't science.

          1. The sad thing is many "scientists" do not treat science with the honor it deserves. They use it to further their own personal gain.

        2. Actually, Tony, it's has not EVER been conclusively proven. In fact, what has been shown is their own words amongst themselves. Sure, they never thought they'd get out, but they still held those views and discussed them amongst their peers.

          1. So pretend any involved person never existed. It would still be the case that greenhouse gases trap heat. It's not my fault you REFUSE to look at any reliable source on this topic. There are plenty out there.

            1. Do greenhouse gasses trap heat? Yes.
              Do light bulbs produce heat? Yes.
              Will putting a couple more light bulbs in a room cause the room to become an oven? No.

                1. No scientific method - no science.
                  It's all correlation, conjecture, back fitting, and faith in "experts".

                  1. So you're smarter than those charlatans at NASA, huh? Yep, I'm convinced.

                    1. It has nothing to do with who is smarter that who.

                      The whole tenant of science is verifiable experimentation.

                      You propose something, you test it, you share your results, and come to a conclusion.
                      If others cannot come up with the same results, or come up with different results, then the proposition is questioned.

                      That is science.

                      What we have here does not follow that model.
                      It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

                    2. And there is plenty of actual data in climate science. You just refuse to take a look. That's your problem.

                    3. There is also plenty of actual data that contradicts the hypothesis that human activity is the cause.
                      If this were actual science then that data would be considered and the hypothesis revisited.
                      Instead scientists who dare to contradict the hypothesis are censored and shunned.
                      They are forced to the sidelines and ridiculed.
                      There is a consensus. Anyone who goes against the consensus is wrong.

                      That ain't science. That's politics.

                    4. There is also plenty of actual data that contradicts the hypothesis that human activity is the cause.

                      Ok, where is it?

                    5. Where is it?
                      It's on the sidelines being ridiculed by the cool kids who agree with the consensus.

                    6. So the 2% are right and the 98% are wrong because...

                    7. Holy shit you're dense.
                      I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that it ain't science. I'm saying that they have not proven themselves to be right because they have ignored the scientific method. They have marginalized all who disagree.
                      It's politics. Not science.

                    8. Slogans don't become evidence the more you repeat them.

                      The problem is you understand science from a middle schooler's perspective.

                    9. Ah yes. Time for Tony to break out the ad-homs because he knows he is wrong.

                      Go suck a dick.

                    10. You are arguing with a Deaon from the Church of Darwin you do know that.

        3. It's a good thing the guys peddling green solutions aren't going to make any money from it, otherwise they'd have an incentive to corrupt the science too.

    2. If you think taxation is a moral issue, then I don't see how you can object to people thinking massively disrupting the planetary environment isn't a moral issue. Sounds like whining to me.

      1. I'm with you Tony!

        BTW what are you doing to prevent the next ice age? I hear those can be real killers. Considering how hard it is to grow crops under ice and all.

        1. Doesn't seem that we'll have to worry about too much ice for the time being.

          1. Didn't you hear?
            Global Warming might trigger an ice age.


            Every base is covered.

            1. The evidence for the link between cosmic rays and climate variations is getting stronger.


              And we are much more likely to be heading into an ice age - largely due to the changes in the Earth's magnetic field.


              I've speculated all along that the secondary effects of the sun - magnetic shielding, solar wind - and its traverse through the galaxy - into and out of the arms of the Milky Way - are responsible for the large swings in the Earth's climate. Carl Sagan intimated as much in 1974 when I was taking his Astronomy 102 course at Cornell.

      2. If you want me to believe that the house is burning down, don't go in and take a nap.

        If it's a moral imperative that I am forced to pay more for my carbon emissions, then you sure as hell better give up your private jet. Otherwise I'll assume you're just full of shit.

  10. I AM a scientist, I have studied the data present, and I don't believe in AGW.

    During Irene, when Anderson Cooper was standing outside and his co-host back in the studio was telling him that he was in the worst of the hurricane, he said that he couldn't believe it, that it was barely raining and the wind was a light breeze, not the 100 mph gusts she was telling him he was supposed to be experiencing? Remember that?

    Her excuse? The computer models, put together by "experts", were saying that the conditions on the ground should be much, much worse than what they were.

    Hmmm... Makes you wonder about how accurate their computer models predicting the Earth's climate 100 years from now actually are.

    The media and the "experts" spent a full week whipping the East Coast into a frenzy, got everyone rapid and lathered up, then the storm came and it was nothing serious. The hype had been played up for ratings.

    The same thing is happening in the climate change debate. Sure, the climate is changing. Slowly. Over geological time frames (read: millions of years). When has that NOT been the case?

    You want an observation of fact?

    Cold blooded animals wouldn't have evolved in our present climate. They needed a much warmer climate, lasting for millions of years, for their adaptation to be effective. But the climate, sans man, changed.

    Why should we believe we're the cause of something which has been happening naturally for longer than we've been on the planet?

    Not too long ago, all of the "experts", the "scientists" told us that getting sick was the result of improperly balanced humors, spirits, in the blood stream, and that it could be cured from bloodletting. That was the "cutting edge science" of the day, and everyone who considered himself a "learned man" believed it.

    Fact: We don't know everything.

    Fact: We can't model everything.

    Conclusion: When the weather man can reliably tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow, heck, in the case of Irene from above, when they can tell us what the weather is actually like at the present, maybe (and that's a BIG maybe), maybe then I will seriously consider their doom-and-gloom predictions of what might happen 200-300 years from now.

    Until then, I'mma take everything they say with a heaping table spoon of salt.

    Now if that kind of skeptical thinking isn't scientific thinking, I don't know what is.

    1. Nicely said.

    2. SELF-HATING DENIER!!!111!!11!1one!1

    3. The media and the "experts" spent a full week whipping the East Coast into a frenzy, got everyone rapid and lathered up, then the storm came and it was nothing serious. The hype had been played up for ratings.

      Ahem. I lost electric for 46 hours. And I'm one of the lucky ones compared to the people up in Greene County NY or in Vermont. (I didn't have many trees down, and only have to move up the repairs on the driveway that I had scheduled for this fall anyhow.) I wouldn't say the storm was "nothing serious". Sure, for the NYC bigots who don't give a shit about anything north of the Bronx, it was nothing serious. But why is that the one sort of bigotry that's acceptable?

      And I say all this as one who was disgusted by the national media's panic-mongering. As somebody living about 90 miles north of NYC (Ulster County, NY), I wanted clear information on what the hurricane was going to do, and couldn't get it from any of the national outlets. There was one weatherman on one of the local channels out of Albany who did an excellent job of putting up two maps in his weather forecast: one showing how much rain we could expect, and a second showing how strong the highest wind gusts were expected to be. Now, it turns out that his forecast wasn't quite accurate, in that the storm's winds weakaned more quickly than expected. Also, the storm moved further west than had been forecast, so we all got a lot more rain than everybody thought; the forecast was 4-6 inches. But it was useful, clear, and not presented with the intention of having people panic.

      1. pls send rain. kthxbye

    4. Denier



  11. I'm a meteorologist who has been professionally certified by several academic and governmental agencies. I have more than a basic understanding of climatology. And I can say without hesitation that this is a load of bullshit. Has Chapman, or any of the global warming crowd stopped to think why rational folks who relied upon science suddenly stopped doing so, beyond the "socialism!" angle? Easy: when scientists stopped relying upon hard data and, well, science . . . and started to see the dollar signs, professional stature, political affirmation, etc. I've seen it myself - been on the "inside" so to speak, and can tell you that more than a few very reputable folks who know better bend to that very powerful force called peer-pressure.
    What must be understood is this: an agenda was created, a few "scientists" followed, it snowballed as the money rolled in, data was (and how anyone can deny this at this point is beyond me) manipulated, pressure applied, and now you have this so-called "settled science". Bullshit.

    1. bullshit doesnt melt ice

      1. Au contraire!
        I have with my own eyes seen a bull drop steaming hot shit onto ice and seen the ice melt!
        Bullshit does indeed melt ice!

      2. The regular cycles of the earth, however, do . . . they melt, they grow, they melt, they grow. What about this simple fact is so fucking hard for you to understand? The Earth is 4.5 billion or more years old. We have little more than a century of scientific weather observation under our belts, much less in the realm of climate modeling. With you people, it's almost like seeing an apple fall from a tree and freaking the fuck out and screaming that the sky is falling.

        1. deniers argument...there's no melting so any melting is natural. oh yea, makes sense

          1. Hey, thanks for bringing your special brand of stupid to the debate, Urine.

          2. Indeed,

            This is one area where we need to agree with our progressive friends like Matt Y and Ezra K.

            Any assertion that the climate ever changed before the 19th century is anti scientific non sense. Everyone knows that the Earth's climate was completely stable for 4.5 billion years.

            1. what about me asshat? first time in 500 years!

              1. well u aint open anyway so the melting is all natural !?

              2. Actually you are off by a factor of at least 7X. It was open in the 40s

        2. Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle.

          Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.

          First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

          Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

          'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'?This idea is one short step above appealing to magic

          1. This ^ ^ ^
            A textbook example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

          2. Mmmmm nope - you got it backwards. Make your hypothesis, and then YOU tell us why all that stuff DOES matter and how it works.

            Otherwise, it's all "magic" and I don't care...

            Nice try, thanks for playing.

            1. The burden of proof is squarely on those who want to assert a phenomenon that apparently contradicts the laws of physics.

              1. that's what i told newton

            2. The science is settled.

              Top men voted.

              STFU and listen to you betters.

              1. The denierism is settled! Oil shill said so.

            3. Mmmmm nope - you got it backwards

              Wasn't that his point? I assumed he was being clever, but maybe not.

          3. "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing." --07/27/2011

            "63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done ? demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be." -- 08/26/2011

            It would appear there are some rather gaping scientific holes in the theories of the climate alarmists.

            1. 2007 Henrik Svensmark Interview: Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming

              Most leading climate experts don't agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity?which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere?could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we've been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited.

              There is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the warming role of CO2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and insisted that "unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease." As astrophysicist ?Eugene Parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to Svensmark's new book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, "Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by 'eminent' scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy."

              Turns out he was right. Read the article and see how he was treated for his efforts. When does Henrik Svensmark get his Nobel?

    2. Obviously, you are not a true scientist, since you dispute settled science.

      1. Settled science like string theory?

        It's disturbing how vogue areas of funding are crowding out other avenues of scientific research. For instance, if a climatologist actually has concerns about AGW claims or has a warming theory that doesn't blame humanity, will he get significant funding? Support from his university? Good press? Ability to publish in journals?

        If you read all of that thinking "Bastard shouldn't get any help", then you know absolutely nothing about science.

        1. Obviously, the sarcasm didn't telegraph well in my earlier comment.

          1. No, no, I was piling on.

        2. Is there anything to fret theory?

          1. I prefer the combination of the two, along with pick therory.

    3. There's so many science based blogs that act like scientists are all these pure individuals who never lie, never play politics, fart rainbows and make My Little Ponies look like a Brazilian street gang. It's really sad.

      1. You mean like how those evil corporations do all sorts of dastardly things while angelic government employees contemplate the music of the spheres whilst dispensing justice and truth with their right hands?

  12. I like the fact-free, research-free style of this article. Conservatives were right in the past but wrong now, just because.

    1. Chapman is far and away the worst of what Reason has to offer.

      1. Steve Chapman is on vacation this week...

  13. But what would environmental skeptics say if 97 percent of scientists solemnly announced that climate change is a massive pile of horsefeathers?

    The burden of proof is on those making an assertion (which would be Chapman and Gore in this case), which is why your "consensus" in favor is different from a consensus against.

    1. How are deniers not making an assertion?

      They are saying that pumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere has no effect. They are saying 98% of climate scientists are wrong. What they never seem to say is how or why.

    2. Assertions by top men are true until proven otherwise.

      It's the new science.

  14. The survey was sent to 1500 scientists, of which about 75 responded, and 73 of those 75 answered yes to the question

    Self selection, how the fuck does that work?

    1. How was this survey conducted phone? E-mail? That's a really low response rate.

      1. Maybe they were on vacation.

      2. So now surveys are part of scientific method? Then Galileo was definitely wrong.

  15. Scientific Method: hypothesis->experiment->data->conclusion

    "Come to a consensus" and "ostracize all who disagree" are not part of the scientific method.

    Those things are, however, part of politics.

    AGW is not science. It is politics.

    1. That's the way they got the data. Everybody knows it except you.

      Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.

      Answer: The growing confluence of model results and the increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model may well look like sharing code or tweaking 'til things look alike. But it is also perfectly consistent with better and better understanding of the underlying problem, an understanding that is shared via scientific journals and research. This understanding is coming fast as we gather more and more historical and current data, all of which provides more testing material for model refinement.

      Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.


      1. Again. Consensus is not part of the scientific method.
        Dismissing anything that contradicts the hypothesis is not part of the scientific method.
        Begging the question is not part of the scientific method.
        Popularity is not part of the scientific method.

        No scientific method - no science.

        1. Nobody but you is claiming the scientific method includes consensus, popularity, begging.

          Build straw-men much?

          1. Maybe you should read stuff before you cut and paste it.

          2. The AGW argument is based upon consensus, popularity, and begging the question.

            It is not based upon verifiable experiments that produce consistent data.

            So it's not science.

            To argue that it is science is to say that the scientific method includes consensus, popularity, begging the question.

            1. Don't forget, lots of beautiful cool people believe in it - that's the most important thing. And the nice socialist solutions it helps.

              1. Don't forget, lots of beautiful cool people believe in it

                I thought I covered that with "popularity".
                All the popular cool kids believe in it, so if you believe in it too then you can join the popular cool kids.

                1. I believe in it.

      2. I'd tend to believe your argument if the top scientists in the field didn't fight tooth and fang to blackball dissenting views. That isn't the behavior of people who have the facts behind them.

        1. Not to mention that there's not really agreement on the amplitude of AGW. Plenty of agreement on a current warming trend, somewhat less agreement that anthropogenic causes are part of that trend, much less agreement on how much of a factor any human contributions are.

          1. There is an agreement among the popular people.

            If you agree with them then you will be popular too!

      3. The models are perfectly correct. At least as perfect as possible.

        Unfortunately they left out the cloud/cosmic ray connection.

        Uh. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.

        1. Unfortunately they left out the cloud/cosmic ray connection.

          They have to leave those things out. Their influence on the climate is so great that temperature changes caused by greenhouse gasses are drowned out.
          How can you calculate changes caused by greenhouse gasses if they are drowned out by water vapor and solar radiation?
          You must leave those things out of the models.

    2. sarcasmic, you left off something

      Scientific Method: hypothesis->experiment->data->conclusion->repeat

      1. I figured that was understood as part of the conclusion.
        If the data does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be revisited.
        If the data does support the hypothesis, then see if it can be duplicated.

      2. An infinite loop! So we'll never know. How convenient for those who do not wish to be convinced.

        1. It's not a fucking loop you troglodyte. If the hypothesis is correct and your conclusions support that, then obviously independent parties should be able to duplicate your findings. It's not like that duplication has to go on forever.

      3. Repeat isn't part of the scientific method.

        He didn't leave anything out, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

  16. not only AGW, but stem cell, selective adapation, carbon dating...the "know-nothings" have taken over the gop.

    1. Could it be...ssssssssssssssss?

    2. Not that the Democrats are deliberately sticking their fingers in their ears over established facts like, say, supply and demand, inefficiency of price controls, personhood/viability of a fetus, carbon neutrality of ethanol or other alternative-energy sources....

      1. econ aint science or...it takes more than a barnapkin to make the laffer curve work

  17. Once upon a time Reason had nuanced reporting. This morning it features a pile of bullshit lumping people who doubt the measurement of warming with those who doubt the correctness of the computer models with those who doubt the quantitative accuracy of the models. All of this based on the hook of a few very crude surveys. Lazy journalists on a deadline are pretty easy to spot. Have a nice weekend Steve.

    1. Once upon a time Reason had nuanced reporting.

      To be fair, Chapman doesn't write for Reason (COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM). Not that Reason has not become less serious and more sensationalist over the years.

      1. Are you guys pinin' for the fjords days when Virginia Postrel was here?

        Cause I think you both need to DRINK!

        1. I met her once at a conference in San Jose. And, curiously, I drank afterwards.

  18. Funny, I remember 'conservatives' rejecting biology wrt race, sexuality, and other well-studied phenomena.
    This is a pretty blatant example of 'confirmation bias', even for a Reason article...
    There has never been, and almost certainly never will be, a divide between science and non-(or anti-) science that matches the divide between 'conservatives' and 'liberals'.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

    1. Privation property rights are contradictory to the Non-Aggression Principle.

      The agricultural City-State (civilization) is externally invasive and internally repressive.

      If you're a defender of agricultural civilization (City-Statism), you're a bootlicker of the thugs.

  19. and belleve me i kno about knowing noting

    1. take ur malox old mex

  20. 20 years ago my plasma physicist father told me the warmists were full of shit. So, now I'm guilty of magical thinking?

    1. id believe any dad made of plasma

  21. This was actually posted on Reason? I thought I accidentally clicked on the HuffPost or something...

  22. The Hobbesian myth of "nasty, brutish, and short" is magical thinking about pre-invasion society.

    The last 60 years of empirical data, evidence-based science is in.

    Reality: The Original Affluent Society by Marshall Sahlins.

    Reality: Non-State sociopolitical typology by Elman Service.

    Reality: The Agricultural City-State is more work, less health, more hierarchy and bosses and tyrants, less leisure, diseases of civilization.

    Civilization is externally invasive and internally repressive. Civilization is the State you Hate.

    "No state can achieve proper culture, civilization and progress as long as Indians are permitted to remain." ~President Van Buren (1837)

    1. But how can we have convenience stores with no Indians?

      1. Wait: Casino or convenience store? Dot or feather?

      2. Or casios?

        Or vacation trinkets?

        Or pollution advertisements?

        Or drunks???

  23. I love how Chapman leads with his chin. The key words in the subhead are "verifiable facts." The fact that we wish we could determine is the global distribution of temperature over the past several millennium. The data we have is incredibly sparse and very dirty. Now we've done the best with the data we have and the consensus is that there has been a warming trend over the last century. I'm betting that's probably right. But to say that current climatology is based on "verifiable facts" is bull. We can't reproduce the crappy data we have and we have not yet figured a way to collect more. Exactly how are we supposed to verify this data? We can't. The only verifiable data we have is what we are collecting right now. Anyone who wants to fit an ad hoc, multiparameter, nonlinear feedback model with multi-century-long time scales to a decades worth of reliable data is free to do so.

    1. 'One hundred years is not enough'

      ?Yes it is

      ? 1998 and 2005 are the warmest two years in at least the last 150.

      ? It is warmer now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.


      1. "It is warmer now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years."
        Now that is funny. Best pseudo-scientific line I've seen in a long time! I bet you not only love, but actually believe the movie poster for An Inconvenient Truth that shows a smoke stack directly leading to a hurricane. Really, thanks for the laughs!

        1. NOAA Paleoclimatology is a branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. Paleo data come from natural sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments-- and extend the archive of weather and climate back hundreds to millions of years.


          1. The proxies are great, except for when they aren't.

            1. except for when they are cherry picked or except for when they are put into a distortionary model.

              1. hey buddy, watch it!11!!!

      2. That can't possibly be right. There was a pretty significant warming during the Middle Ages. I suppose that could've been localized and not worldwide, but a climate where Britain is practically subtropical sounds warmer than today.

        I find it quite interesting how much time AGW proponents have spent on attacking the idea that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't really that warm. Because, obviously, if it really were warmer than today, the possibility that anthropogenic causes are at the root of any warming would be much harder to support.

        1. Actually, there is some evidence supporting the MWP as a global event. Further, Exxon Parrot is full of shit the dustbowl depression years were very nearly as hot as now.

    2. I also seem to recall that there has been an overall warming trend that began in the mid-late 1800's, which came at the end of a long cooling trend which arrived in the early 1300's and lasted about 500 years. How does one separate "human activity" from climatic trends and adjustments that have nothing to do with human activity? Earth's climate has changed consistently throughout the planet's existence, even before humans evolved. How can anyone say with certainty that our activity alone can bring about significant climatic adjustment?

      Oops - there I go being magical again.

      1. Because burning fossil fuels is bad!
        It generates profits for core-pour-ray-shuns!
        Core-pour-ray-shuns and profits are evil!

        It's an original sin.
        Carbon, the basis of life, is sin.

        So it must be having an effect on the climate because it must.
        Because it's evil.

        Therefor any change in the climate is caused by carbon because carbon is a sin.
        Profit is a sin.
        Core-pour-ray-shuns are evil!

        It's all magic!

        1. The agricultural City-State is immoral because it is aggressively invasive and occupational and repressive.

          Are you for aggression, invasion, occupation, and repression?

          Are you for all the tools and technology of aggression, invasion, occupation, and repression?

          If so, why do you continue to call yourself "libertarian," especially when you're just parroting all the lines of the admitted Statists?

  24. How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

    1. Yes, you are truly showing what an intellectual powerhouse you are by reading off arguments that someone else wrote. Did you learn that from Obama?

      1. But that someone else is an authority!

        1. and we dont need no stinkin authorities!...take his guns pablo

        2. If only. The article I read at grist was basically several thousand words claiming "the Hockey Stick is true in spite of Mann's duplicity. However, I am not an expert on the subject and it is really technical so you will have to trust me".

          The amount of ignorance produced by today's "education" establishment is simply grotesque.

          1. "subject ... is really technical so you will have to trust me"

            Put your trust in authority!
            It's too complicated for you to understand, but authority can!

  25. Is it "magical thinking" to question the leap of logic from the assertion that the "mean temperature of the planet is increasing and human activity plays a causative role" to the alarmist allegation that unmitigated disaster will occur unless government immediately seizes control of the economy and returns us to the technology level of the 1820's?

    Is it "magical thinking" for someone to point out that many big name Democrats who were pushing Global Warming/Climate Change (and some not so big name Democrats in NJ whom I know) were heavily invested in "green industries" that stood to benefit from government grants and programs -- and suggest that self-interest just might, maybe, possibly lie behind their actions?

    1. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

      Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

      This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before -- that sounds reassuring, right?

      Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

    2. Is it "magical thinking" to question the leap of logic from the assertion that the "mean temperature of the planet is increasing and human activity plays a causative role" to the alarmist allegation that unmitigated disaster will occur unless government immediately seizes control of the economy and returns us to the technology level of the 1820's?

      No, but that is not what Chapman described as magical thinking. Read harder.

      1. I did read it. And I object to those who ask logical, skeptical questions on the subject (as one should do on any subject) being dismissed as "deniers," and ridiculed as engaging in "magical thinking."

      2. "Read harder."

        So you're saying you have no answer, then why shoot off your dicksucker fuckwit?

  26. Is it "magical thinking" to question the leap of logic from the assertion that the "mean temperature of the planet is increasing and human activity plays a causative role" to the alarmist allegation that unmitigated disaster will occur unless government immediately seizes control of the economy and returns us to the technology level of the 1820's?

    It's that precise leap of logic that is the problem here. You don't like the proposed "cure" so you are denying the diagnosis. That's wishful thinking. The rational thing to do, in the absence of any legitimate reason to doubt the diagnosis, is to find a better cure.

    1. I disagree. The diagnosis is the issue. Are we speaking of catastrophic climate changes a al "The Day After Tomorrow" or are we talking about a more gradual warming trend that humans will adjust to, just as we adjusted to the cooling trend in Europe from the 1300s to the 1800s?

      It may be "undisputed" that I have a cough. But unless I determine whether the cough is a minor cold or the first sign of tuberculosis, I cannot determine the cure to apply.

      1. It's undisputed because all true Scotsmen agree with the conclusions.

      2. I was speaking of the diagnosis of 90-95% of scientists, that there will be significant but not catastrophic warming trend over a long (in human terms) period of time.

        Not the strawman version you would prefer to argue against.

          1. To what part of TFA are you referring? The only one that seems in any way related to the post you replied to was:

            A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up.

            I rounded down to account for the small portion of them who are alarmists.

        1. "I was speaking of the diagnosis of 90-95% of scientists"

          So you were lying then.

  27. Yep. BTW, are these the same scientists who warned us a few years ago that we were nearing an ice age?

      1. Turn the phone off bitch puddin.

        1. Still chasing phantoms, "heller"?

  28. You do realize that in science, "significant" means "statically different from zero" not "big."

    1. You're overstating the typical meaning of "significant" in scientific work.

      "Statistically significant" usually means that there is "a 95% probability that the result is different from zero".

      1. ""Statistically significant" usually means that there is "a 95% probability that the result is different from zero"."

        Not only wrong, but so wrong that you border on intentionally lying.

  29. "The climate change deniers don't like the idea of governments restricting greenhouse gas emissions, so they insist that these emissions are nothing to worry about, that scientists are corrupt and that it's all part of a socialist power grab."

    I blame the left--in no small part--for such climate change denial. If the left were more respectful of people's individual rights, then those people would be less prone to deny the science.

    If libertarians and conservatives think that the only solutions available are inherently socialist, then it shouldn't be surprising to see them embrace outright denial.

    That is why the left coming to embrace the sanctity of individual rights is really an environmental issue. If environmentalists can never get sufficient support to do enough about climate change anyway--unless they embrace the sanctity of individual rights--then embracing individual rights is an environmental issue.

    Time for the real environmentalists to wake up and get rid of the dead weight on the left that would rather destroy the environment--if saving the environment requires them to embrace individual rights.

    1. Personal responsibility? Oh, I guess that became code, long ago, for "liberals made me do it!"

      It's hard to think of solutions for this problem that don't require massive government action (all of which you'd call socialist and therefore bad). That's not liberals' fault, it's just reality. If your worldview can't function in reality, it's not a problem with reality.

      1. Ron Bailey has made a number of libertarian suggestions that will help solve the problem.

        Ken Shultz has proposed a number of hyper-capitalist solutions to the AGW problem.

        Just because you can't conceive of capitalist/libertarian solutions doesn't mean there aren't any--that's reality.

        The socialist solutions being pushed by the left can't get the public support to implement--and what little they do get approved is insufficient to solve the AGW problem.

        That's the reality.

    2. I am glad you are here Ken. I had a thought about your claim this morning.

      A libertarian solution is already in effect, of course. For instance, one assumes that a true believer such as yourself has already adjusted their lifestyles. The market, individuals applying their own knowledge, is responding to the demand. Either individuals decide what the demand for "green living" is or government does. Everything that involves coercion, by definition, isn't libertarian.

      Many people freely choose to live like the Unibomber thinks we should all live. They freely spend their money at their own discretion. IF their really is a problem, a big if, more and more people will start to react accordingly.

      Claiming "The only solution is collective government coercion" is, by definition, Socialist. So you will never be able to force the the round libertarian peg into the square hole of government coercion.

      This isn't to say that you shouldn't attempt to convince people through reason. The ONLY Libertarian solution, isn't it?

      1. Expecting people to factor in global environmental harm in their transactions is to admit that your model of human behavior is fundamentally flawed and must be rejected.

        Honest people change their minds about their political beliefs in light of evidence. They most certainly do not hang onto those beliefs with their fingernails, rejecting scientific reality to do so.

        1. Expecting people to factor in global environmental harm in their transactions is to admit that your model of human behavior is fundamentally flawed and must be rejected.

          Silly child, I obviously wasn't addressing you. Clearly you lack the mental capacity to think beyond a third grade level. What purpose would addressing you serve? You think government coercion is the path to Utopia.

          I was attempting to get Ken to think about his belief in the free association of individuals. How if something is a good enough idea then people will choose it freely. If they must be forced, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all.

          1. So say the Hoover Dam was a good idea; if we had only waited a little longer, it would have materialized via the collaboration of lots of individual choices?

            Some things need to be done that don't result from your (fatally flawed) equations of rational humans in a market. Even if humans were acting rationally on an individual level, that doesn't mean the accumulation of all those choices would lead to a rationally sustainable outcome on a macro scale. Your assumptions are just flawed, and when science tells you your assumptions are flawed, you don't bitch about the science, you change your assumptions.

            What we're even less certain about than climate science is behavioral science--it's not beginning to affect the way real thinkers (not free market dogmatists) think about markets. But I see a lot more certainty about the outcomes in markets here than even firmly established evidence of GW.

              1. you=retarded

      2. "Claiming "The only solution is collective government coercion" is, by definition, Socialist. So you will never be able to force the the round libertarian peg into the square hole of government coercion."

        That's right. That's more or less what I'm saying.

        They can't force people to do what they want them to with much success, and forcing average people to solve AGW related problems against their will is counterproductive if we want to solve the problem...

        I see the left's solutions to AGW as being a lot like the right's argument for conscription circa the Vietnam War. The argument used to go that if we didn't have conscription, then hardly any Americans would volunteer for military service in times of war.

        And that was completely untrue! Americans will volunteer for military service--especially if they think there's a need for it. When we used to coerce 19 year old kids into military service, people went bananas against the military and everything it stood for. The kids started flirting with communism and all other manner of stupidity... Talk to a lot of baby boomers, and I think we're still suffering some of the results of that conscription today!

        The argument the left is making about solutions to AGW is pretty much the same thing--they want to conscript people into the fight against AGW whether they want to fight that war or not! ...and it shouldn't be surprising to see that when people think they're being forced to do things against their will, they start flirting with all manner of stupidity--like Jane Fonda posing with the North Vietnamese.

        I would never have maee friends with communists just because I was against the Vietnam War--and I won't pretend to be a climate change denier just because I'm against the socialist solutions the left is hyping.

        And if the left wants people to stop embracing climate change denial, then they should stop advocating conscripting people against their will to fight their war for them.

        I think that ignoring people's right to choose for themselves may ultimately destroy the environment--if the environmentalists don't figure it out soon.

  30. And no, we don't think they are corrupt because of "reasoning backwards" or some other such idiocy. Its you who are reasoning backwards.
    We think they are corrupt, because we have their emails where they make corrupt statements.

    1. If a libertarian robbed a bank somewhere, would that somehow discredit libertarianism?

      I don't see why someone who believes in AGW doing something incompetent--or even malicious--would discredit the science.

      The science is what it is regardless of what anyone wrote in an email.

      1. When there's a conspiracy to lock scientists out of your journals if they question your results, when you manipulate data in order to produce the results you want, when you hide your source code, yes, it discredits your results.

        1. The science doesn't change though.

          You're talking about manipulating public opinion--not manipulating science.

          The science is what it is regardless of which scientists get published in which journal.

          1. "The science is what it is regardless of which scientists get published in which journal."


            Again, because you are apparently very stupid, if DISSENTING SCIENCE IS BLACKBALLED (as it has been) and scientists are fudging their data (they have) then the SCIENCE is NOT SCIENCE.

          2. "You're talking about manipulating public opinion--not manipulating science."

            fudging data= manipulating science

            seriously, are you an idiot?

            1. If an idiot is someone who thinks AGW is a problem or not regardless of what gets published and what doesn't or what public opinion says? Then, yeah, I guess I'm an idiot!

              Do you imagine the sun orbited the earth until public opinion and scientific journals said otherwise? 'cause if that's smart, then I'd rather be an idiot.

              1. I'm curious as to where you get your evidence if not from things that are published. Or is this a faith-based initiative.

    1. You said that already.
      Still not clicking it.

      1. It's bitch puddin, not me.

  31. It's not science when it's written in emails.

  32. ...and we're still waiting for evidence. You know, predictions validated by data. That's how science works. Climatologists insist that the rules of science can't apply to them because it takes so long to gather data, but this fluid dynamicist says "tough fucking shit."

    1. fluid dynamicist

      fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap

      predictions validated by data

      Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record.

      'There is no evidence'?Yes, there is

      1. Um, except, no, you're wrong. And doing "science" IS precisely making predictions and testing them.

        A bunch of temperature measurements= nothing. That's "data", and tells us nothing. It becomes "information" when you make and test some hypotheses that do or don't result in rejecting the null hypothesis. And you modify your "theory" and "hypothesis" and go from there.

        But you keep posting your little linky and temperatures and butterflies pinned to a piece of cardboard and collecting pennies for your class "science" project.

        1. Not to mention when the "measurements" aren't actually raw data. Even HADCRUT and GISTEMP aren't raw data...they're filtered, aggregated, interpolated and altered according to a variety of theories. In particular, a number of the adjustments made to GISTEMP by Jim Hansen are highly questionable, and CRU's destruction of its own raw data makes its reconstruction impossible to validate.

          1. Evangelical Libertarians Propertarians Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory


            1. IF? ok that's funny

        2. Maybe those 98% of climate scientists should retake 8th grade--they'd learn so much.

          1. "Maybe those 98% of climate scientists should retake 8th grade"

            Well those 98%, which comprise less than 10% of ALL climate scientists, need to take research methods at least. You? You're too fucking stupid to learn anything.

            1. Ayyy, watch it!11!!

      2. Did you Google that and copy-pasta all by yourself? I hear they're handing out PhDs for that kind of research these days.

        1. What original have you said or thought in the last 2 weeks? Nothing? Or did you figure out that fluid dynamics all by your lonesome?

          1. Well, let's see...I'm working on a paper explaining a novel approach to shock-capturing on unstructured grids that I developed while working at a certain jet engine company. And I'm working on replacing the guts of my turbulence model with a local scale-similarity idea I had while working on the shock capturing method. Published a paper on the core discrete dynamical system used to model the SGS fluctuations not too long ago...it generated quite a bit of interest from the reviewers.

            I'll let you know how it turns out.

        2. At the University of Manitoba the school is awarding Phd s to candidates that fail, but claim extreme exam anxiety!11!!

          Top that , Chapman.

      3. "Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators."

        AGW theory is based in the following liberal logic.

        Ken Lay was from Texas, George W. Bush was from Texas therefore Lay and Bush were in bed together and conspired with Paul Krugman. Never mind that it was the Clinton WH where Lay spent the night.

        Why does the Left always ignore sunshine? Is it to keep us in the dark on their true intentions?

      4. Not true. In order to have catastrophic global warming, the climate forcings have to be amplified. That's why the models show an exponential rather than a linear curve.

        By the way, have you read the IPCC report? Aerosols and clouds are largely negative forcings and have very large uncertainties in their magnitude. The recent CERN experiments will shed light on this.

        The science is NOT settled. No science ever is.
        Einstein's Theory of Gravity is still called a theory for this reason. Saying the science is settled and then saying we have to act NOW is not science at all. Study it another 10-15 years and then let's revisit it.

        1. Of course science isn't settled, ever. Nobody said it was, except you.

          But we still make decisions on "unsettled science." Like not jumping off a cliff.

          Or not deliberately murdering the planet with pollution so a few billionaires can cruise around in G-650's and be Randian Supermen while fucking over the fawning wage-slave Eddie Willers.

          1. Yes, that's why we have electricity and cars. So a few billionaires can have G-650's, not so that a few billion ordinary people can have a quality of life vastly exceeding that of anyone in any century prior to the 20th.

          2. "But we still make decisions on "unsettled science." Like not jumping off a cliff."

            Following the logic:

            Should we try to change gravity?

            Or adapt to gravity and invent a flying machine.

        2. By the way, did you notice that the IPCC report frequently sites non-peer-reviewed publications from advocacy groups such as the WWF?


  33. The [libertarians propertarians] are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton's universe and Herschell's universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.

    John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825

    1. Huh huh - you said "tainted" - huh huh, huh huh, huh huh...

      1. John Adams is a terrorist.

  34. OK, just a couple questions, Chapman, White Injun, Algore et al:

    1) What SHOULD the temperature be?
    2) Why is that the "ideal"?
    3) How do we know that a warmer temperature than now/in the past is not the "correct" temperature?
    4) Is a constant termperature "normal", or is a varying termperature "normal"?
    5) Are all temperature measurements taken at consistent places/times using consistent methods so we know we have reliable and valid measurements?

    Ima stop there - there are more questions. If you all answer those...well, other than the last one, you can't so...but let's start with these anyway.

    1. Answer all here. Wax on, wax off. You work now boy.

      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

      1. It's cute watching you struggle

        1. Somebody who views people as mere property would like to see that.

      2. Do you Google these links on your own, or do you need help from the librarian?

        1. They're simple and effective and quick and you don't like them because they counter your Exxon Parrotism. SQUAWK! SQUAWK!

          1. Oil money pays the bills. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

  35. No matter what some scientists might think, I was trained to not view science as something that should be done by consensus, but by proof.


    2. The consensus on gravity proves the theory of gravity of wrong.

      Besides, I don't believe in it, thus, there is no consensus.

      Now, party on!

      1. Gravitational models have been validated by experiment...climate models, not so much. Still looking for that pillow of warm air over the tropics?

    3. jeff - do u wish ur corrective sodomy to cum before or after the obligatory waterboarding & gun confiscation?

  36. "A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up."

    98% of climate 'scientist' are basing their opinion on faulty computer modelling, not real world observable evidence. Garbage In/Garbage Out computer modelling is not science, but a science fiction diction addiction or what we used to call an "educated guess" at best.

    Hide the decline!

    1. It is almost literally painful watching you guys pretend like you know something about what you're talking about.

  37. There's another name for this magical thinking. It's called faith. People decide what they want to believe. It's no accident that those who won't accept scientists' conclusions on global warming, evolution, etc, happen to be people of faith. They believe what they want to believe.

    1. For example: "Nasty, Brutish, and Short" is parroted on faith.

      Reality is The Original, Affluent,* Non-State** Society.

      Marshall Sahlins
      Professor of Anthropology Emeritus
      University of Chicago

      Elman Service

    2. There's a mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

      1. Yes there is. But the idea that evolution means that there is some gradual change that takes a long time seems wrong. Nature is very competitive and changes in conditions can bring about significant changes very rapidly. A minor mutation that used to be a weakness could turn out to dominate as changing condition gives individuals with that mutation a large advantage over the rest of the population. Given a few generations you could see the population look totally differently than their ancestors and there would be a major gap in the fossil record.

        When looking at something like evolution we have to be careful not to trivialize those that do not agree with the simplified version that we were taught in our schools not too long ago. Ironically, one of the best clues about our own species could come from a physicist who was skeptical of the false AGW claims. In the book, The Chilling Stars, Svensmark and Calder point out that changes in cosmic ray flux, which they argue regulate changes in cloud cover, could explain how human beings evolved from a strong jawed (small brained) ancestor that depended on fruits to the current form. A mutation that made the jaw muscles much weaker allowed the skull to grow larger. When changes in the CRF made the habitat unsuitable for creatures that depended on picking fruits those individuals who had the larger brains, thanks to that genetic mutation that weakened the jaw muscles, had a major advantage in the harsher environment that made problem solving skills more desirable than strong jaw muscles.

        It seems clear that Reason writers are very ignorant of the actual science and have their heads in the sand. Fortunately, the public seems a lot smarter than the make believe intellectuals who are too lazy to do basic research.

      2. Another mountain refuting it.

  38. I just like the term. If you do too, give me a +1. If you don't, act "libertarian." Go on, don't be bashful.

  39. "Governments love the issue because it provides a good excuse for more taxes, regulation and bureaucracy. Scientists love it because it provides grant money and subsidies, as well as fancy trips to exotic locales on someone else's dime. Government bureaucrats love it for that too (actually, everyone involved loves it for that). Socialists love it because it shows the evils of capitalism. Environmentalists love it because it shows the evils of civilization. Religious leaders love it because it shows the evils of humanity. Statists love it because it seems to be a problem that can only be solved with a bigger state. Corporations love it because they can get government subsidies to pretend to invent "green" products that people can pretend will solve the non-existent problem. Guilt-ridden middle class liberals love it because it helps them to feel alive for a few brief moments before the emptiness returns. Celebrities love it because it gives them a feel good issue to advocate for in order to assuage their guilt over their own extreme wealth and lavish lifestyles. Pretty much every member of the political and intellectual class has a stake in this issue surviving, and so it probably will."


  40. A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up.

    Wait, what? You mean the same guys whose grants are on the line if they say otherwise say that global warming is caused by humans?

    Will wonders never cease.

    1. OMG, the gummit is funding gravity research. The Theory of Gravity must be wrong!


      1. well it is only a theory after all. for all we know, this is one giant centrafuge

        1. Can't be centripetal force. Bilous O'Reilly has made the US into a no-spin zone.

    2. Actually, even the claim that 97 to 98 percent of scientists believe people are causing the planet to heat up is false. And note that I can argue that changes of land use and soot can cause the planet to heat up and still not believe that CO2 emissions are a problem.

      1. The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

        Academia Brasiliera de Ci?ncias (Bazil)
        Royal Society of Canada
        Chinese Academy of Sciences
        Academi? des Sciences (France)
        Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
        Indian National Science Academy
        Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
        Science Council of Japan
        Russian Academy of Sciences
        Royal Society (United Kingdom)
        National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
        Australian Academy of Sciences
        Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
        Caribbean Academy of Sciences
        Indonesian Academy of Sciences
        Royal Irish Academy
        Academy of Sciences Malaysia
        Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
        Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

        ... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

        In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

        NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
        State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
        Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
        American Geophysical Union (AGU)
        American Institute of Physics (AIP)
        National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
        American Meteorological Society (AMS)
        Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

        If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

        'There is no consensus'?If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like?

        1. I am sorry but the various academies that you claim support the conclusions have never had debates among their members. What you have is endorsements by the leadership of national science organizations. Given that most of the people who aspire to such positions are political hacks it is no surprise that they support the false claims made by the IPCC and various governments.

          Of course, the skeptics could point out that the list of the national organizations that supported the Eugenics Movement was just as impressive. Or that the geological societies opposed the idea of continental drift for decades. Or that national medical associations opposed the idea that H-Pylori caused ulcers. Or that the AMA opposed Elizabeth Kenny's polio rehab treatments even though they worked far better than any alternatives that it had supported.

          I am sorry but in science appeals to authority just don't cut it. Particularly when the actual empirical evidence to support the claims that are being made does not exist. Note that we do not need to argue about faith when it comes to science. All we need to do is to show that the empirical data and the methodology that comes up with the conclusions are sound. In this case there is no single paper that is based on empirical data that can show that HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2 are a material driver of temperature trends.

          1. Grasp at me!

            1. Actually there is nothing to grasp because yours if a faith based argument. If you are interested in real science please provide a link to a single single paper that uses empirical data to demonstrate that the HUMAN EMISSION of CO2 is a driver temperature trend changes. Let me note that I can point to the ice core data, which shows that the change in temperature trends lead the change in CO2 by around 800 to 1200 years. That makes temperature change the cause and CO2 the effect, not the other way around.

              And then we have the ARGO system problem. Its data falsifies the radiative imbalance assumption that is the heart of the AGW theory. According to the theory the increased CO2 will cause more heat to be retained and that will show up as stored heat in the oceans. But as the AGW proponents found out, the actual measurements do not support the theory. In fact the empirical data falsifies it.

              And then we have the latest data coming out of CERN. The CLOUD experiment supported Svensmark's hypothesis that changes in the cosmic ray flux, which impacts atmospheric ionization, can regulate changes in cloud cover and have an effect on climate. The experimental data suggests that the sun is the principal driver of climate change just as it always has been.



            2. Given that we are limited to two links per comment here are two more to support the points I made above.



        2. The best thing is that almost all those academies and "societies" are government funded. Also, adding the EPA to the mix is quite hilarious.

          Besides, why would an endorsement from the American Institute of Physics (AIP) be relevant?

          1. Besides, why would an endorsement from the American Institute of Physics (AIP) be relevant?

            It might be. But the membership was never asked to debate the issue and come up with a statement that reflected the general position of the average member. (Not that such a general statement be reflective of anything or worthy of using as a support.) The promoters of AGW keep throwing around the 96-98% number as if it were really indicative of support for their position. They expect the public to mistake the professed opinion of leadership of various national bodies as their true opinion or as the opinion of the membership. It isn't.

    3. Please point out the specific agency or government directive that doles out research grants based on their willingness to conclude that humans are causing global warming. Put up or shut up.

      1. Here you can find one of those grant offerings on "climate research", from the governent

        And it only took me 30 seconds to find this application - there are several dozen of applications for grants in "climate research" just by googling for them.

        And Here, a report on how government grants are skewing the research towards so-called "climate change"

        "The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers' money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.

        Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of "global warming" theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again."

        Your turn, sockpuppet.

        1. So, no evidence that scientists are paid to reach a certain conclusion, then.

  41. I think this sums it up.


  42. Steve, your lack of information on this topic is astounding. First, scientists don't agree on the topic. After the emails came to light about how the British studies manufactured data with inaccurate mathematics, the "science" behind global warming unraveled.

    Under the light of facts and truth, the push toward global climate change legislation appears to be merely another crisis by design that benefits those promoting the legislation.

    If your goal is writing informed investigative journalism, you should start with the politicians and financial firms which created the structure to "trade carbon credits" as a new source of financial profit. President (then Senator) Obama, VP Al Gore, and wall street financial firms invested millions creating the software, the trade exchange and the structure to begin to trade "carbon credits" @ the Chicago Climate Exchange.

    The entire reason behind the sham science, and marketed hysteria appears to revolve around this: If climate change is man made, then we should monitor and regulate it. Carbon credits were created as a currency, along with the rights to buy, sell, and trade the credits on the open market. A new currency required govt regulation and financial firms which can legally make the transactions. Thus, managing global warming required creating a new currency, a source of profit for those who own the trade rights.

    Surely a liberal reporter such as yourself is interested in exposing the capitalists, and govt / wall street collusion which would result in crushing existing businesses and their proletariat workers in the pursuit of exorbitant profits.


    1. Science says that only a dictatorship can rescue us from ourselves. You must be a denialist.

  43. I'm not sure it's valid to lump all skeptics together. A number of us agree that the average temperature of the earth is up compared to 100 years ago. We disagree with the attempt by climate change proponents to alter the economy of the world with Draconian restrictions on economic activity and new taxes that transfer wealth between countries. As Bjorn Lonberg has eloquently written, these efforts will not reduce the average temperature and will cost a lot in economic terms. There is no science that is "settled", ever, in spite of what Al Gore et al say. New evidence has been published about the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, which has implications on atmospheric warming and cooling. Global warming models depend on an alleged positive feedback of water vapor in raising temperature, because CO2 is the weakest greenhouse gas and is present in very small concentration in the atmosphere. Moreover, skeptics take issue with the idea that there is an 280 ppm of CO2 is the one and only CO2 concentration that can sustain life. Over the history of the earth, the CO2 concentration as well as the temperature have varied considerably, long before the arrival of Homo sapiens. The pushback from skeptics is driven partly by the desire to include all sides in the debate about what has caused the temperature to increase as well as to resist what we perceive as ideologically driven coercion in the form of carbon taxes and wealth redistribution, which have nothing to do with science and everything to do with advancing an agenda of leftist economic philosophy.

    1. I'm not sure it's valid to lump all skeptics together. A number of us agree that the average temperature of the earth is up compared to 100 years ago.

      First, given the fact that the Little Ice Age ended around 150 years ago we would expect temperatures to be higher. The question is why are they higher. We could argue for anthropogenic CO2 but there is a serious problem on that front given that the warming from the depths of the LIA began more than 400 years ago when CO2 emissions were immaterial. Because the IPCC understands this problem it only makes the claim for a material human influence since the 1950s, which is when emissions exploded. The problem is that from the 1950s to the 1970s temperatures were going down in most nations of the world, not up. It was only after the PDO went into its positive phase that temperatures went up. But that is now over and the sea temperature data is showing no warming since 2003, which is a problem for a theory that argues that CO2 causes a radiative imbalance that shows up as stored heat in the ocean.

  44. But that was another century. Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril?climate change caused by human activity. It's liberals and environmentalists who can point to a broad scholarly consensus for their claims. And it's the skeptics who now revile the scientists as stooges and liars.

    This is not a valid argument. First of all, there were plenty of 'scientists' who were hyping the dangers of DDT, acid rain, breast implants, etc. They were wrong.

    Second, there are plenty of scientists who argue that the actual data shows that changes in solar activity, changes in land use, soot emissions, natural changes in the phases of the ocean currents, and other factors have a much larger effect on temperature trends than HUMAN EMISSIONS of CO2. Many of these same scientists point out that the ice core data shows that it is the change in temperature trend that drives CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. And they rightfully point out that a false claim of consensus that correlation proves causation is not very scientific.

    For some reason your magazine and authors have gone off the deep end on this issue. I suggest that your authors need to do some basic research.

  45. What I find appalling it the hubris on display as described by George Carlin with respect to those who want to "save" the earth. There is no doubt there is a warming trend. The staggering implication of this fact is that...there is a warming trend. Just as there have been countless warming and cooling trends throughout the planets existence. To presume that humans have any meaningful control over this is idiotic.

    1. Even if we are a substantial factor in any warming, what can we do about it? Really? Not very damned much, as most of the world wouldn't go along with us, even if we'd go along with killing our economy to radically change our emissions. Which we wouldn't.

      Fact is there's already a market for cleaner, less polluting engines, energy production, what have you, and we'll slowly move to producing fewer emissions over time. There's plenty of time to get the science right, and if AGW is a big deal, the interest in solving the problems presented by that will be done in the marketplace.

      1. If that were true, it would have happened already. It's already going to be orders of magnitude more expensive a problem to deal with, in both the market and public sphere, than it would have been a couple decades ago.

        You want to take the market's failure to act as proof that there's not a problem, since if there were a problem, the market would have acted. The circular reasoning of a market worshiper.

        I challenge you guys to say one thing on this topic that has the implication that the oil industry would have to give up a single dollar of profit.

        Because you don't all say the same bullshit by coincidence.

      2. Market. Market. Market. Keep chanting it. Good religion. Good useful idiot.

        Rome under the Republic had a civic religion, consisting of the reading of entrails and other sensible precautions. The civic religion of the modern world is social engineering, which depends on similar techniques of divination?

        The members of the American economics profession, as [Thurman] Arnold contended, performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of "laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals." However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice "transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government." Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical ? and beneficial ? result of their deception was to throw a "mantle of protection ? over corporate government" from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic "symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up." But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained "the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man," the effect was salutary ? "the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence." It was this very freedom and independence of business professionals to pursue the correct scientific answer ? the efficient answer ? on which the economic progress of the United States depended.
        ? Robert H. Nelson, REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH

        Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.
        ? Robert H. Nelson, ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

        1. The market works. Since we've moved to a kinda-sorta free market economy in the West, prosperity and technological advance have increased orders of magnitude faster than at any time in human history.

          Government control has been around a long time. What is it's history?

          1. It works too?

            How can you claim a market works to solve a global environmental problem, when it never has done anything of the sort before?

            1. On another thread, Tony claimed that he's non-ideological. I then challenged him, if that were so, to read into market solutions for global warming, of which there are many; those solutions are vastly cheaper and less coercive. Naturally Tony declined. It might be interesting to engage with someone on this topic, who doesn't share my opinion, but that person would need to actually be honest. Tony is not, and he's a hypocrite to boot.

    2. Except when that's exactly what the evidence says.

    3. Like George Carlin said, humanity can die off, and the earth will go on and recover from mankind's stupidity.

      So do you want to kill off your grandchildren's chance to live on this planet? Oh wait, you probably don't have any children, since you're a libertarian propertarian. Mooching little bastards.

      1. No, I want to kill off YOUR grandchildren.

  46. If global temperatures peaked in 1998, can we still say the earth is getting "warmer"?


    Also if this graph is correct, and we assume the warming here is caused by mankind, why should it drop off in some years the way it does? Does it have to do with a change in human activity or what? (I'm not trying to make a point, I honestly want to know why this is given the man caused theory)

    It would be interesting to see if there's some kind of quantifiable connection to human activity, such as less driving and travel during recessions and having lower temperatures as a result, but I haven't ever seen any study attempting to measure the amount of human activity with the amount of warming.

  47. ".....skeptics who now revile the scientists as stooges and liars."

    Mr. Chapman, you are playing devil's advocate, right? The difference between the previous alarmist episodes you mention, and this one, is the politicization of the scientists themselves. Tthe 97% concensus is a cooked number ( fabricated in a similar fashion to Obama's '90% of the guns in Mexico' lie ) .

    Without going so much into the details of the evidence and reasoning ( I will be happy to, if you insist ) consider this; This scare is identical to all the other alarmist scams in it's birth, form and function. If the end result is always that people fork over their money, private property rights and liberty in general, then it is a con. If it quacks, its a duck.
    I was skeptical from the start, but two main things made red flags pop up for me. At the very first climate conference in 1975 attendees openly schemed to create a climate scare as a means of controlling population. Secondly, the more recent formulation of the 'Cap and Trade' plan did nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, it simply redistributed wealth and severly restricted individual liberty.
    Cap and trade huh? It doesnt do anything to reduce the problem, but takes peoples money and increases an already over-bloated, power mad government. Who the hell do these people think they are? How stupid do they think we are? Maybe I should ask, how gullible are you?

    If it looks like a con, it is a con.

    Hmm, on another note, why has reason magazine not done more stories on the 'gunwalker' scandal? That is the biggest, most insidious power-grab in memory. Did I miss the stories?

  48. Has a memo gone out or something? This week I've seen "Repubs are anti science!" articles across the Gawker sites (IO9, Gizmodo, etc.)

    And now here. And I'm also beggining to see a "look, they're religious!" meme going around.

    It looks like "anti science" and "look religion!" are going to be flooding the public....anything to take away from the entirely minor point of the rotten economy.

    1. anything to take away from the entirely minor point of the rotten economy.

      Yup, that's exactly it.

  49. Too late Earthlings.

    The Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change has determined that AGW on your planet is real.

    The Collective forces of the United Socialist Solar System Replublics under my command are currently en route to your planet to enforce Security Council Resolution USSSRSCRC02.

    USSSRSCRC02 mandates a Carbon Exchange be setup in Chicago Il....

    USSSRSCRC02 authorizes....force....extreme prejudice......

    Resistance is futile!

  50. The article itself is welcome, and I'll even let the snipes at environmentalists from the past go.

    To the overwhelming consensus of deniers here: what if you're wrong, and 98% of scientists are right?

    You're such rational students of the scientific method and logic, after all, surely you've considered the possibility.

    Aren't you taking the risk that you are helping a cause that will be responsible for unprecedented harm to the human species? If you haven't even considered the possibility, because your certainty is so great even in the face of overwhelming evidence, then that's all we need to know about your claim to be thoughtful and rational, not to mention smarter than all of the world's experts on the subject.

    1. Brilliant Tony. I believe that is the same reasoning applied by religious zealots to win people over. Not to convince them, as acquiescing is not the same as believing. It is a dishonest argument, and that kind of disingenuity is exactly why our skepticism increases daily.

    2. To the overwhelming consensus of deniers here: what if you're wrong, and 98% of scientists are right?

      Then the earth will warm like a degree in the next fifty years. Or .9 degrees if we cripple our economy trying vainly to stop it while the developing world takes over.

    3. "Aren't you taking the risk that you are helping a cause that will be responsible for unprecedented harm to the human species?"

      Why do you science deniers believe mankind won't adapt and evolve like we always have to an ever changing climate?

      Think of all the trees we'll be able to plant Greenland once Climate Change? finally happens.

      1. Adapting and evolving entail huge numbers of individuals failing to adapt or evolve, i.e., dying off.

        That would mostly people people who don't burn as many fossil fuels, at least at first.

        Why do the most basic tenets of libertarianism--like personal responsibility--go out the window when oil company profits are at stake?

        1. Do you still drive a gas-powered vehicle, Tony?

          1. If I do, even given my understanding of the harm caused, that sounds like a huge blow for rational economics.

            1. If you do, you're a hypocrite, just like every other environmental hand-wringer who still drives gas-powered vehicles.

              1. Maybe so. What's your point? My hypocrisy disproves the worldwide scientific community?

                1. No, it proves you're just hopping on the latest fashionable anti-freedom train.

              2. Not just a hypocrite, but dishonest as he claims he's non-ideological, but then won't discuss market solutions to global warming.

                1. Of course he won't. The market is a yucky, evil thing to leftists.

    4. We have considered the possibility, and have come to the conclusion that currently there is no certainty at all due to complete lack of understanding of our climate system. We therefore would like to dis-encourage the taxation of air, since the only thing we can predict with certainty is that it would massively curb economic growth.

    5. what if you're wrong, and 98% of scientists who are paid great sums of money to prove that human activity is the cause of climate change are right?


        1. Ummmm, the definition of "scientific community" is scientists getting paid through government funded research grants.

          1. So all of science is suspect? Or all scientists are wrong? What's your claim here?

            1. Dude. Climate "science" isn't science because it does not follow the scientific method.
              It's politics, paid for by politicians.

              1. Lots of basic research is government funded. Is it all suspect?

                So your claim is that there's a nefarious conspiracy to impose socialism on you, and governments are taking the route of inventing a global problem out of thin air in order to achieve their goal? Not only that, but almost all of the world's experts have gone along with the conspiracy?

                Don't you see that this is a claim that needs backing up too? Do you not see it as inevitable that people might simply assume the more likely scenario: you don't understand the scientific method?

                1. What conspiracy? Conspiracies are hidden.

                  It's all obvious to anyone willing to take a step back and look.

                  1. It's obvious that every scientific organization on earth is corrupted and can't do science anymore?

                    1. If it doesn't follow the scientific method, that which defines science, then it is not science.
                      What they are practicing is politics, not science.

    6. For the entirety of mankind all civilizations, until recently anyway,have believed in the existence of deities. In my book that makes it a consensus so it must be in fact a fact that all was created by a God since their has been and still is a consensus that there is a god. A consensus proves nothing to me or anyone who use logic.

      1. But they're really really smart and Tony is really really stupid.
        He cannot evaluate any of this on his own because he has no capability for rationality. He just goes with what he feels is right.
        So who do you think he's going to trust?
        The scientists who have been blessed by authority, or some rabble who has no respect for authority?

        1. I admit to be a layperson, so I have to trust the overwhelming consensus of experts.

          You're claiming to be smarter than the overwhelming consensus of experts.

          1. Consensus is not part of the scientific method.
            What part of that do you not understand?


            Consensus has no meaning in science.
            Even Einstein said it only takes one experiment to prove everyone wrong.
            Once a consensus is made, then that one experiment that would prove everyone wrong is ignored.
            It is wrong because it defies the consensus.
            That is not science.

            Science is not decided by a vote.

            Politics is.

            1. Just because the majority of scientists can be wrong doesn't mean that they always are. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet you claim to be more knowledgeable than the worldwide scientific community. Why should anyone trust you over them?

              1. Their methodology does not follow the scientific method, therefor it is not science.

                Why is that so impossible to understand?

                1. Your methodology does? Asserting a worldwide conspiracy to secure grant money is the scientific method?

                  1. If what they are doing is not science, then my methodology doesn't much matter, does it.

                    I have no doubt that many of these people really believe in what they are doing.

                    But it ain't science.

                  2. Your methodology does? Asserting a worldwide conspiracy to secure grant money is the scientific method?

                    Why do you always act like everyone who disagrees with you necessarily agrees with the dumbest people who disagree with you?

              2. Just because the majority of scientists can be wrong doesn't mean that they always are.

                No, but if in the past you executed the algorithm "Believe what the majority of experts believe", you would have been wrong. Therefore executing that algorithm is a systematic flaw in your thinking. Therefore don't do it. The answer to the question "What is the probability a lot of people would believe X if X isn't true" is "actually quite high" - even when you limit your sample to scientists. About two-thirds of scientists believe in God - better than the general population, but still a completely inadequate percentage. That alone should be enough to demonstrate that you'd do just as well to flip a coin to decide what to believe than simply going with the consensus. For goodness sake, just look at the evidence. If you can't be bothered to learn as much as you can about the subject and assess the evidence yourself, you should just say 'I don't know'.

    7. To the overwhelming consensus of deniers here: what if you're wrong, and 98% of scientists are right?

      First, the 98% claim is not supported by real data. It is made up by those that are trying to promote a political issue. Second, even if they are right it does not mean that wasting resources on doing something that will have no material effect, like reductions in US carbon emissions, the right thing to do. Making people poorer and increasing the reach of government over daily lives is not a good idea when the alternative is to adopt to what would be a better climate for most of the world.

      What you are forgetting is that not that long ago scientists agreed that the Holocene Optimum had a much better climate than we have in the current period. That was when Greenland was mostly green, the Arctic was ice free in the summer, and olive trees could grow in Germany. And when North Africa was much wetter and the Sahara was green.


      1. You guys are a lot like Republicans in that you conflate oil industry profits with economic health.

        GW is likely to disrupt economies in vast and unpredictable ways. You want to impose that on people who aren't responsible, via inaction, and I'm the social engineer?

        1. What's the oil industry profit margin, Tony?

          Oh, wait... that doesn't matter. Or so you say.

        2. You guys are a lot like Republicans in that you conflate oil industry profits with economic health.

          You are confused. This argument is about the science and on that front the Reason author missed that the empirical evidence does not support the AGW theory.

          The AGW argument is faith based. It uses models rather that empirical data to make a claim that the data cannot support.

          GW is likely to disrupt economies in vast and unpredictable ways. You want to impose that on people who aren't responsible, via inaction, and I'm the social engineer?

          1. You're just telling falsehoods. There's plenty of data, you just ignore it when convenient.

            1. There is also plenty of data that contradicts the hypothesis. But it is ignored because it is convenient.

              Scientists do not ignore that which is inconvenient because they are on a quest for knowledge.

              Politicians ignore that which is inconvenient because they are on a quest for power.

              1. There's data that suggests that pumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere doesn't trap heat?

                We've got a bigger story on our hands than just climate change. We have a whole new physics.

                1. There is data that suggests the role of greenhouse gasses on regulating the planet's temperature is minuscule relative to clouds and variations in solar radiation, yet computer models that "prove" global warming ignore those minor little details.

                  There is evidence that CO2 levels follow rising temperatures instead of leading them.

                  That, and the fact that the proponents dismiss this out of hand because it goes against the consensus, is grounds for reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.

                  1. Wow, are you misinformed. Almost as if you eschewed reliable sources on this subject in favor of right-wing bullshit. Don't wet your pants over solar radiation and cloud formation; there's no evidence of the phenomenon you're referring to.

                    1. "reliable sources" is defined as "those who agree with the consensus"

                      Politics. Not science.

                    2. Reliable sources = scientific sources. You're the one defining reliable as "those who agree with me" no matter how few in number or unattached to the scientific establishment. You have a much higher hill of evidence to climb than I do. You have entire disciplines of science to disprove. Asserting a nefarious conspiracy doesn't cut it.

                    3. A condition of being part of the "scientific establishment" is going along with the consensus.

                      That's politics. Not science.

        3. GW is likely to disrupt economies in vast and unpredictable ways.

          Not really. We already know that warmer temperatures are beneficial to human society and life on this planet. Warmer means longer growing seasons, more precipitation, and less conflict.

          You want to impose that on people who aren't responsible, via inaction, and I'm the social engineer?

          Yes you are. You want to impose taxes that will impact daily lives but will have no impact on temperature trends. Even its supporters admitted that Kyoto would have no measured effect on the temperature trend.

          And wasn't it the greens who supported the ethanol industry when it asked for subsidies to convert corn to fuel? The end result was higher food prices for the poorest and most vulnerable people on this planet. And do not forget the biofuel subsidies that led to jungles being cut down so that palm oil could be produced. Or the environmental regulations that force people to use approved shower heads and toilet tanks or risk being fined or risk going to jail. Or forcing people to give up incandescent lights in favour of poorer performing toxic florescent substitutes.

    8. Well, the other side of the coin is either a certain great reduction in everyone's standards of living, or localized reductions in standards of living combined with the continued risk of that harm when only a few select developed nations actually do something.

  51. Real science is skepticism. Simply because pandering politicians decide to jump on a skeptical bandwagon for political points does not negate the skepticism. The politicians have no clue on science, either way. Tomorrow the politicians will change. However, prior to calling skeptics magical science, you should do a little more research on the topic, from multiple perspectives. Your article was very superficial shown by your simply playing back talking points, spoon feed by special interests.

    1. "The politicians have no clue on science, either way. Tomorrow the politicians will change."

      No they won't. Politicians care only about expanding their power. Power is the end, not the means.
      AGW is an excuse to control most every human activity, because the use of energy becomes a sin and everything uses energy.

  52. I would expect less spin from Reason. Few people deny that the climate is changing, it has been changing for eons. Many people, however, are skeptical that mankind has anything to do with it...y'know, since it's been going on for millions of years and stuff.

    1. Few people deny that microevolution happens, it's macroevolution that's controversial.

      Same bullshit, different day.

      1. Re: sockpuppet,

        Few people deny that microevolution happens, it's macroevolution that's controversial.

        You're such an imbecile. You don't even read what you write.

        1. And not because there aren't assholes that argue that - your imbecility stems from using that to compare it with what pablo argues.

          1. Because the comparison makes you seem equally idiotic? It should.

    2. Less spin indeed! The article reads like it might as well have been written by Al Gore.

      By the 2nd or 3rd paragraph he's already trotting out "scientists" who, of course, agree with him.

      "Today, it's scientists who agree on the validity of a major environmental peril"


      You asked all of them?

      More fake concensus crap.

      AGW is imploding. CERN's CLOUD study might just be the final nail.

  53. Number one problem in the world today: omitted variable bias!

  54. Let'see? We have a closed atmosphere. Water recirculates and replenishes reservoirs and aquifers. CO2 does the same thing. What exists always has. What is released into the atmosphere will be reabsorbed, as it always has been. Historical levels of CO2 do not match up with temperature swings one way or the other. Prove it wrong! You can't !!

  55. In our solar system one planets atmosphere is over 90% CO2 and it's boiling hot, another planets atmosphere is over 90% CO2 and it's freezing cold. There are reasons for the disparity. Our planets atmosphere is .045%+/- CO2 we have a long way to go to reach 90% but even if we do our outcome will not be the same as the other two planets.

    1. Actually, what I find interesting is the observations that show that Mars has had a much higher degree of warming than the Earth. It must be all those NASA rovers that are causing temperatures to go up.

  56. The theory of gravitation is a scientific theory too but no sane person is going around blaming mankind for the Earth's wobble.

    Gaia thinks mankind is insignificant and can prove it with a volcanic eruption or two, among other things.

  57. I just want to point out my favorite example of the bullshit that is consensus..."Everyone" though Louis Frank was wrong. Kind of funny when ACTUAL science demonstrates the idocy.

  58. In 1988, James Hansen released a paper predicting the future of Earth's climate. He proposed that greenhouse gas emissions would cause the Earth to warm. Not only that, he predicted a certain pattern of warming: nights would warm faster than days, less ice, warmer land, warmer oceans, warmer lower atmosphere, and cooler upper atmosphere. The radiation escaping Earth would diminish, and it would diminish primarily in the range absorbed by GHGs. The Arctic would warm faster than the rest of the planet.

    Since then, ice has continued to melt, the land is warmer, the oceans are warmer, the lower atmosphere is warmer, the upper atmosphere is cooler, and the radiation escaping Earth is diminishing primarily in the range absorbed by GHGs. Nights are warmer faster than days. The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth.

    While this has happened, solar output has declined slightly. Cosmic rays, the new savior for flat earthers, have been on the same cycle as they have since the 50s. Earth's orbit hasn't wobbled. Natural forces would actually be slightly cooling the Earth without humans.

    Now, Hansen did overestimate warming by about a third. He expected slightly more GHGs emissions than we've actually emitted. He also used a climate forcing model that was about 25% too strong. But his model of the pattern of the warming was absolutely correct.

    23 years have passed, models have been refined, data have been collected, studies have been conducted. If humans weren't causing global warming, the evidence should be mounting against the AGW thesis. It isn't; it's strengthening. Get your heads out of your asses, creationists.

    1. "flat earthers"

      Go back to DU, Jersey.

    2. The key to being a successful psychic is to make many, many predictions. People will remember the predictions that come true and will forget those which don't. People are suckers.

    3. Oh well it's only off by a fucking third. What's a third to warmists?

      By the way nice work on Earth's wobbling orbit. NEWSFLASH: Earth's orbit always wobbles. I'm not saying that is the cause of global climate change today but you may want to look up 'precession' and 'Milankovitch cycle'.

  59. Steve,

    Well thought out argument here and I agree on most points. I do think that your reference on acid rain to be misstated. The example of recognition of both the causes and dangerous effects of acid rain has much more similarity to the issue of climate change than you portray. In the case of acid rain, the identification and quantification of the causes and impacts were science-based and the approach to the problem was a combination of regulation and thoughtful market based approaches. The success of the "cap and trade" system for SO2 was very successful both here and in the EU and reduced emissions significantly at much lower costs to the consumer than originally anticipated. A similar science based approach with a combination of regulation and market based approaches could have similar success in stimulating the development of innovative approaches to greenhouse gas emissions.

  60. It begger a simple question about this whole thing about science. The question is : so what? Say the liberals are right about emissions, so what? You could pass a law commanding all factories to cut emissions in USA. Will it make one atom of difference? The USA law doesn't apply to China, or India, or Niger or other states. They'll keep right on burning coal because they need something with strong power density to provide the power flow needed to raise their people from poverty. Instead of Chapman bitchin' about science, how much more useful would he be if he use his time to promote cheap transportation and generators for oil, natural gas, and nuclear? They have greater power density per weight, with much smaller footprint and burn far less carbon than other fuels that are far more carbon heavy and wasteful of resource like *ahem* biofuels that would take the whole state of Texas to provide same megawatt as a five arces of a nuclear plant.

    1. If the question is : so what?

      The answer is : small government.

      This answer Reason.com uses on any other matter from unemployment to retail sales to immigration. The answer remains the same.

      The actual physical tools to solve climate change are currently unknown and need to be found. Who will do this?

      The leftists think the answer can be found via political cooperation regulating the entire world with top down production controls, because that is what leftists think is the solution to everything. Rightists generally respond to this by pointing out that it has never worked yet.

      Rightists might suggest that if people were afforded liberty and freedom from regulation to seek a solution we'd find the tools. Rightists might suggest that the solution lies in capitalism, that if carbon footprints of product/services were costed in to a free capitalist society a solution to minimise that cost would be found. The beauty of this solution is that (unlike the leftist solution) it has a history of working.

      Unfortunately most rightists are actually climate scientists (who knew?) and spend their time endlessly debating various aspects of climate science rather than politics. This makes it possible for leftists to position their (planet destroying,awful, neo-Stalinist, bull pucky, non-) solution ETS as the "preferred" method.

  61. http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/.....ngs_2.html

    Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, routinely averages a profit margin of about 16%. The soft drink market is even more lucrative.

    At the gas tank integrated oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, the government extracts more than 48 cents, on average, per gallon. That's right: Uncle Sam takes nearly seven times more out of drivers' wallets via taxation than "Big Oil."...


    Yes, even a Salon contributor is smarter than Tony.

  62. There is solid evidence that convincingly shows at least some influencal Climatologists are corrupt.

    Saying Climatologists are widely biased in their endeavors and even corrupt isn't the same as being anti-science.

    It is simply stating the following; Scientists are human. Humans are corruptible. If corruption reaches a certain level in the hierarchy of status and organization, the uncooperative are systematically weeded out. We think this group of scientists has been corrupted.

    Would you disagree that Literature Departments in U.S. Universities are overwhelmingly Progessive? Does a Conservative stand a chance at tenure? It's not quite the same as corruption but it illustrates the process of how to produce an artificial consensus.

    Does pointing this out, and then disagreeing with their conclusions about which books are worth reading make one anti-Literature. If you think it does, then no dead white males for you.

    1. What evidence that they are corrupt? Is it more solid than the evidence for climate change?

      The answer is there is no evidence, so of course it's not.

      Read science, not right-wing websites, and you might learn something.

  63. When scientists hold up consensus as proof, then I say they are scientists no more.

    1. They hold up proof as proof. You as a layman are required to trust them or become an expert, study the evidence, and disprove them.

      It is mind-boggling that you guys can't see how you're distorting science for politics, the thing you're accusing actual scientists of doing without any evidence.

      1. How do you feel about that 6-10% profit margin for the oil industry, Tony, given the much-higher profit margins of OTHER industries?

        1. Obviously it's not enough and we should destroy the planet to improve the margin, for freedom.

          1. Way to dodge the question, yet again.

            Either profit margins are bad, or they're not. You, as a liberal, should hate ALL profit, not just one kind you cherry-pick for convenience.

      2. We're distorting science for politics?

        That's funny.

      3. No, I'm not required to trust them. I'm not required to trust anybody.

        Try presenting proof.

        Without proof, you're just a quack - not a scientist.

  64. There has been a cover up and an effort to prevent any study that goes against the man made climate change theory. read here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....nge-shock/

  65. GODDAMMIT!!! Would someone please tell me why warming the planet would be a bad thing!!!!

    Holy-shit-eating, ass-tube-groping, wang-twanging, kootch-centipede-inserting, fleshlight-revelling party in Nevada.

    If warming the planet can't be proven to be a bad thing, then worrying about the validity of AGW doesn't mean anything.


  66. Mr. Chapman, are you a scientist? I am a physicist, a graduate of MIT. I have read hundreds of scientific papers on whether there is significant anthropogenic global warming, and have concluded that there is inadequate evidence (but very substantial scientific fraud) to support that contention.

  67. I accept the scientific consensus that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is warming the planet.

    But I've never seen an environmental problem where the alleged bad affects are so far into the future, or where the proposed solution (cutting CO2) has such a miniscule marginal affect.

    Actually cutting CO2 also looks futile:


    1. Think of it from the point of view of a politician.

      Cutting CO2 is an opportunity to tax and regulate EVERYTHING!

      You are preventing THE END OF THE WORLD!

      You have UNLIMITED POWER!

  68. My own reservations about "global warming" (sorry, yeah, I have to use quotation marks or "so-called" or something) stem from these factors:

    - I concede that vast majority of scientists say that global temperatures have risen in the last 100 years, and that they credit this change to human activity. But the attribution to humans is a conclusion, not a proven fact itself. As it is my impression that most climatologists either work for government or are favorably disposed to statism, I therefore have doubts as to whether that conclusion is unbiased. I have what I regard as a healthy skepticism towards the 'State Science Institute' given that it supports and benefits from government power.

    - I have yet to hear it addressed why, if clearly the Earth has undergone climate change in the past without human intervention (ice ages, etc. etc.), why they are so sure that this climate change is due to the industrial revolution. Again, I suspect that to do so suits an agenda of statism rather than represents a true scientific finding.

    - Even if it is the case that humans are causing climate change, why is this necessarily something that needs to be stopped? It is merely a new paradigm on Earth. The planet is not going to explode, it is just going to change and we would need to adapt. Weather changes; human liberties of Freedom and Property are eternal. Perhaps we shall transform the earth in Star Wars' Coruscant. So be it. Free men are not afraid of change.

    1. Clearly there's more bias on the side of oil industry profits. The claim that scientists are after grant money, and that they have come to near unanimity in this giant conspiracy, is just not convincing.

      People adapting to a radical change in climate means, effectively, lots of people dying. And it's mostly poor people in poor countries that don't burn a lot of fossil fuels. If you think you're entitled to decide their fates for them, based on your desire to continue burning fossil fuels, ok, but don't call it libertarian.

      1. Microsoft makes a higher profit margin than Exxon-Mobil, Tony.

  69. Regardless of whether or not conservatives are engaging in magical thinking. The left is engaging in magical thinking of their own.

    Even if AGW is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will not be able to enforce through law the kind of CO2 reductions they claim are necessary without eliminating Democracy or a near miracle in technology.

    People may very well vote for their solutions but these solutions will simply be reversed again once the effects begin to bite.

    If the majority of eople were actually willing to make significant near term sacrifices for the sake of future generations, then the entire Western World wouldn't be having problems with budget deficits.

    Remember the video of Obama saying his plans would necessarily require significant increases in energy costs?
    Surely he is a believer in AGW.

    Then when the price of oil actually spikes what does he do? He releases oil from the strategic reserves trying to reduce the price. That's reality. The public and therefore politicians will not tolerate short term pain even in the face of long term disaster.

    If the left is correct about AGW, then their only real hopes are:

    1.) technological fixes (i.e. beating oil and coal at its own game, price) So far, not so good.
    2.) peak oil, maybe helps a little but I haven't heard anything about peak coal.
    3.) Eliminate Democracy in the U.S. in order to come to the correct decision, and probably go to war with half the world to force it on them as well.

    Face it progressives, if the threat is as dire as you say, then you should begin preparing for a coup and World War III.

    1. Shutup, dammit!!!

    2. This is where the whole right-wing mantra on climate change is so fricking annoying.

      The left-wing solution won't work. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see that.

      The only viable climate change solution is market based and small government. The planet is in crisis and we need to slash government spending eliminating whole departments, eliminate government debt. We need to eliminate income tax and replace it with a carbon added sales tax that is taxed at a lower rate.

      To stop climate change we need small government.

    3. 1.) technological fixes (i.e. beating oil and coal at its own game, price) So far, not so good.

      Might work better if the subsidies were equalized... I'm thinking, eliminated perhaps?

      2.) peak oil, maybe helps a little but I haven't heard anything about peak coal.

      There's a lot of coal, that's why it's so damn cheap. As far as peak oil, the industry will probably just beg for bigger subsidies to offset the higher cost of extraction. Solution? See above.

      3.) Eliminate Democracy in the U.S. in order to come to the correct decision, and probably go to war with half the world to force it on them as well.

      Yeah... I don't think I could support this even if I was sure it was A)our only hope, and B)going to work. If it comes to this, we're pretty much screwed either way. We may as well kick back and enjoy the tropical Greenland beaches.

  70. This has got to be one of the most untimely articles I've ever seen posted here. Right in the midst of a lot of new evidence pointing towards the sun, post-Climategate, an article slamming AGW skepticism. Color me unimpressed.

  71. My solution (like I've said before)

    Net zero carbon tax. It doesn't increase tax rates, and increases in energy costs would be matched by decreases in tax rates.

    It would also increase energy efficieny, and probably also spur the labor market.

    Sounds like a win/win.

    1. Too timid, this is a crisis dammit (ask any leftist). With a crisis we need to free up the private economy to tackle the problem. Yes we do need a carbon tax, but set within a reduction in over all taxation.

      We need to make massive tax cuts and reductions in government spending - to tackle climate change.

  72. Oh boy another Steve Chapman Special (TM). It's unquestionably self-sure tone juxtaposed to a study used to back your claim where there were 75 respondents to a shitty survey gives the Steve Chapman Special a flavorfail of near-vindictive stupidity.

  73. Sometimes it's good to lie about someone's past, claiming they were more intelligent, or more moral, as an appeal to bring them to a higher level of intelligence or morality. I don't recall conservatives ever having been on the side of science, even in the cases you mention. They were against those controls just because they didn't like government telling them what to do. Being accidentally correct on Alar doesn't magically change all past conservatives to science supporters.

    Also, acid rain was a big deal. It's not a big deal now in the US and Europe because we have controls on emissions that limit the amount of acid rain. But before those controls, not only were forests dying, but buildings and monuments made of marble were disintegrating, being dissolved by the acid rain. You don't see articles about that anymore!

    Acid rain is a huge problem in China now, because their economy has been growing so quickly with few emissions controls and even less enforcement. The Chinese government, which also recognizes AGW by the way, has taken measures to control acid rain because of the threat it poses to crops.

    Finally, looking at the comments, this strategy of trying to flatter conservatives with lies about the past doesn't seem to be working anyway. Better luck next time!

    1. RE: "I don't recall conservatives ever having been on the side of science, even in the cases you mention."

      Yeah, non-liberals did such anti-science things as point out the bullshit that was being concocted by quacks like Paul Ehrlich. The world's going to end in 1995! Okay, 1997! No, wait - I know - 2000! Alright folks, this time it really, really is going to come to an end - no later than 2010!

      How many times are you Jonestown types going to keep spewing the same cult-like mantra?

      This delusion is your creation. The burden of proof is on YOU. Provide proof or relegate this hooey to the nature cult that it really is.

      1. The fact that you don't understand the evidence that points to a significant human contribution to warming in no way invalidates any of that evidence.

        On the upside I don't think that really matters here. I'm pretty much 100% convinced that (at least) the US's contribution to the problem is the result of state interference in the energy and agriculture industries, not and excuse for more state involvement.

        I don't always agree with Libertarian policies, but this is definitely a problem that I think would get better with less government meddling.

  74. Has anybody heard of Climategate? How can we believe the words of those whose livelihood comes mostly from politicians with agendas?

  75. NOTHING in climate science has a 97% certainty. NOTHING.

    The "97% of scientists number" survey is PROOF POSITIVE of "herd mentality" which should DEMAND careful and patient scrutiny by an intellectually honest scientific community.

  76. 97% of people whose funding is dependent on climate change being an important issue, believe in climate change. I would never have predicted it.

  77. In unrelated news, 97% of theologians believe in the divine.

  78. You can't get 97% of any group to even agree on what to have for lunch. Big red flag. So you're backing alarmism and a statist solution? These people have thrown the scientific method out the window. Are you okay with that? Throw common sense out the window too? Reason some more.

  79. Why surprise that conservatives are people too and place "values" far above "facts"? Whether due to God or to Evolution, people are what they are and it should not be surprising.

  80. I can't help but notice how the author derides "conservatives" on their reversal on science when Cato, Reason, and many other libertarian think tanks pretty don't buy into GW alarmism either.

    The honest thing to do is just come out and say "I dissent with my libertarian and conservative collegues on this matter". But it's much more convenient to pigeonhole skeptics as conservatives so you can maintain the image of some "independent" and not alienate your libertarian friends.

  81. Many conservatives and libertarians are skeptical on AGW. However, it's a leap then to say that conservatives and libertarians are now the ones engaging in magical thinking, implying that the left is consistently pro-science. The vast majority of leftists are anti-science on the genetic modification issue. Genetic modification is the boogeyman of the left, based only on ignorant fear.

    1. implying that the left is consistently pro-science.

      Clearly the numerous examples of him saying exactly the opposite were a clever way of implying this.

  82. Genetic modification is not the only issue as well where leftists engage in magical thinking. Try having a rational discussion with leftists on any number of issues and you are likely to get a magical thinking type of response. I have tried discussing the issue of child or sweatshop labor with leftists, conceding that child labor is far from ideal, conceding that it's always a good idea to try to improve conditions. But then I ask, "What if working in a factory is better than other real world options - working on a farm, begging on the street, or working in prostitution, would you still want to ban it?" It shouldn't be surprising that the answer I invariably get avoids the question. It often finishes with but "no one should have to work in a factory, every child should go to school." Of course, magical thinker, and if I could wave my wand I would make that perfect world for everyone.

    This is often true on the issue of spending. Your parents tell you growing up, that money does not grow on trees. But ask a leftist where the money is supposed to come from for all their expensive schemes or what limit should be placed on spending for something and you get an magical answer like this: "You cannot put a price on ____." "Education of a child is pricelss, there should be no limit placed on what we spend on our children." ....and the money comes from where, your box of Lucky Charms?

    1. Liberalism is a war on math.

  83. This is a joke, right? The issue is not whether the earth has warmed, but whether it's unprecedented and is due to human-generated CO2. There is no convincing evidence for that, given (1) the warming that has occurred is no greater than that of the Medieval Warming Period, (2) the thermal hot spot above the equator predicted in CO2 warming models does not exist (3) the surface warming predicted by these models for the past 20 years does not exist (4) the predictions of increased hurricane activity have been wrong (5) the rise of the oceans has not accelerated as predicted (6) the climate sensitivity to CO2 implied by the theory is contradicted by the evidence, etc etc. By any measure, the CO2 warming hypothesis is a failed theory

    1. Don't forget the issue is also whether the correct solution is (a) a massive expansion of the state to dictatorial authority approximating communism, or (b) mankind's natural adaptability to changing conditions via free enterprise.

  84. https://reason.com/archives/201.....ertarian/3

    Just thought I'd offer this, for what its worth, as a good take on a libertarian 'solution' to the effects of AGW. Apologies if its already been posted somewhere in the mass of comments.

  85. When their models can tell me what the whether was 10 years ago I might be inclined to give their projections 100 years into the future some credence. If I said I have an election model that shows McCain won in 2008, but trust me that it shows the right winner in 2012 not many folks would give me much credence.

    As far as the 97% (which I don't even believe) I bet 99% of those scientists are getting nicer paychecks from "green" grants than they were getting before.

  86. First there's science. Then science gets politicized. Now we are politicizing over which side is doing the politicizing. As for me, where I live was under a mile thick sheet of ice less than 10,000 years ago. We are actually over due for the next ice age. Okay, Houdini. Let's see you get out of this one...

  87. Wow I had to do a double take on this, I checked and my browser did not have a redirector virus sending me from reason over to HufPo.

    Climate deniers, what a wonderful term... Yes the Goreman Church and its terminology for the heretisc who dare question their conclusions.

    Never mind that as we learn more and more we find the serious flaws in the climate models and the forgone conclusions sprout wings and take flight from the nearest window sill.

    Never mind when we not only discover flaws in the "science" but we discover outright deception, lies, destruction of data that contradicts the conclusion and a host of other not so simple mistakes.

    Never mind that anyone who dares to be even the least bit skeptical of reports or studies is ostracized from science and branded a heretic.

    Yes modern climate science is more closely related to 6th century religious practices and less to any serious field of study. But never mind all of that... slip on your jackboots and goosestep to your nearest earthfirst meeting.

    1. Hey, maybe you should download one, Huffpo has Balko now.

      Crazy, crazy world. Can we set up a trade?

    2. Well said.

      May as well just sit back and let those with the pretense of scientific knowledge - never mind the fact that they cannot meet the requirements of the scientific model to prove even their conjecture, much less a theory or law of AGW - tell us what to do in all other aspects of life, too.


  88. This ^ is the correct word....let it be the last! LOL

  89. Greenland ice cores are Republican climate proxies while tree rings cores are Democrat climate proxies.

  90. Let's see:

    1. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to increased temperatures (along with a host of other factors, of course)

    2. Carbon in the atmosphere is regulated by it's cycling through flora and fauna. It is also sequestered into carbon sinks (think trees and hydrocarbon deposits)

    3. Using hydrocarbons for fuel takes carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years and re-introduces it to the atmosphere. At the same time, deforestation and land clearing are reducing the ability of the carbon cycle to accommodate this 'new' carbon.

    Given those conditions, what do you suppose the likely outcome is going to be?

    These are basic facts rooted in hard science. They also form the basis of the AGW argument.

    But, I mean, if you prefer a more defined and rigorous 'scientific' discipline, you could always just stick with economics . . .

    1. I'm with you (and reality) on the science, but I'm with the Libertarians on government's role in the solutions. I believe enforced regulation to correct the problem should be our last possible resort and so far the government doesn't exactly have a flawless track-record with this sort of thing.

      What I wan't to try first is getting the state less invoved in energy policy - by eliminating tax-payer funded subsidies for certain industries for instance - in order to give the better (cleaner/more sustainable) long-term energy technologies a level market to compete in.

    2. You might be right about economics being a harder science than most climate scientists. Economics state their assumptions prior to making up theories. AKA People behave in their self interest. The sun's various cycles don't impact global warming. etc. Though it's amazing how many people truly don't understand that either.

  91. The author is on the correct track about science but the wrong track about several of his beginning assumptions of misleading science. He scrupulously does not attribute his sources directly but only vaugely. Or, should I say unscrupulously. THe Alar reference is specifically debunked By EWG at the following link
    I have not bothered to trace down his other examples as this one alone shows the bias he insists is a leftwing phenomena and that somehow the Science Savvy right extremists avoid. THe cas he makes only shows that there is an agenda by corporate interests to deny scientific reality which he would unwittingly support while calling for a return to sanity on the part of climate change.

  92. political pandering to big dirty biz and the flat-earth believers who vote. a better headline might be: "the strategic GOP reversal on science." once again, labels such as 'conservative' (and 'liberal') don't apply. for instance: i'm conservative with my money, and i believe others should have the liberty to spend their money how they please. which means i'm an economic liberal on a social level, but a fiscal conservative on a personal one. oh, and i like the science. unless some amazing new evidence shows otherwise, and the peer reviewed scientific community stance dramatically shifts, global warming is real and man-made.

  93. Google these exact words: GLOBAL WARMING NO CONSENSUS NOT SETTLED

    There are so many lies (yes, lies) in this article and assertions lacking any reference and support, that I would barely have received a passing grade on this tripe in my Freshman English composition class.

    Has Reason lowered its standards? I'm withholding donations until I feel more confident.

    Do not mistake my opinion here for opposition to contrarian or minority opinions. This article is just low grade, sloppy, and lazy.

  94. Written like a true "beltway Libertarian" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/55272.html) I wonder if only private research were involved if we'd have any controversy about changes we experience in our world.

    Ahh there it is: The only constant, is change...and that sorta goes for the climate too.....

  95. Let me see if I'm getting the gist of the article. In the past, eco-doomsdays have all turned out to be bogus. But this time--THIS TIME--it's real.

    Is this a joke? Because irony this thick must be planned.

    Oh, CERN findings, anyone?

  96. Google "Geoclimatic Studies" (and look at the "mathematics" in what you will find) for some proof of Chapman's point. Not only magical thinking, but cargo-cultism.

    It's worth remembering that Ronald Bailey was taken in by such an obvious hoax. Should have been fired on the spot.

  97. Hey, I thought you guys at Reason were the rational skeptics. Any lowly schmuck who has done any research at all on climate (and our beloved climate sages) is either skeptical or stupid, no matter how many lab coats constitute the quorum. Good science is not a hockey team. It does not require a defense, especially one that cheats.

  98. The global warming ddebate comes down to arguing with idiots. That's why I don't argue with Warmists. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience. To even broach the issue means you just don't get it, are outside of the scientific consensus, are anti-science, probably believe in young earth creation, Noah's Arc, trickle-down economics, American exceptionalism, the Constitution, and the existence of WMD's. See?

  99. This is a bit unjust. The author is at pains to condemn conservatives for skepticism in the face of a scientific consensus regarding global warming (or is it man-made climate change?). However, he ignores several significant facts: 1) significant research (the "hockey stick" graph) supporting the global warming theories has been shown to be fraudulent; 2) scientists who express skepticism about global warming have been subjected to concerted political attacks; 3) the proponents of the research seem to use it as "proof" that radical left-wing policies (carbon taxes, etc.) must be implemented; 4) it's Al Gore's favorite cause; and 5) many of the people now pushing global warming alarmism were claiming the reverse in the 1970s (global cooling). The truth is, I don't know enough on the topic to be sure, but I do know that the proponents of global warming theories have lied to me and have an agenda apart from science. Is it so unreasonable for me to remain skeptical?

  100. As the conservative- atheist I`m astonished by politicized American science."Green" science and energy violating the economics,man-made climate change become the symbol of common consent of the guild,relativity is confused with the moral relativity and the refute is awaited.Gay science is tabooed as the gay marriage is welcomed,liberals are cleverer than conservatives(liberal research ) an so on.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.