Skip to main content

Evidence for global warming mounts every day. Just last week scientists found out that previous measurements in the upper atmosphere were faulty. (Those measurements showed too little warming up there, hence problematic for the global warming theory.) Climate change in the Artic is obvious, US senators Clinton, McCain, Graham say.  

But still, skeptics cannot be "swayed" a bit. (Certainly, energy industry interests remain the same.) I am not sure how "balanced" the media keeps going. But today I typed "global warming" search at, and half of the first page stories were still "anti-warming"... Did skeptics come up with something new?! Here are their stories, see yourself:

Foxnews junk science,
Common sense "prevails",
No warming, just cycles,
Shameless reason online,
Warming is too good for farmers,
Stopping warming is very very costly...

As Krugman recently noticed, skeptics' life is too easy. All they have to do is to sow confusion, cling on any possible indefiniteness. For example, the Fox-beloved "experts" hardly produce any data themselves, they just exercise in interpreting other's work. It certainly seems that only one side of the debate tries to make things clearer. It's high time to ask equal standards from both sides.

For instance, computer models of climatologists are criticized. They are indeed just approximations, best possible with current technology. But why we only have models which predict worrisome future? What does it mean that we do not have reasonable optimistic "approximations"? Incomplete results and models give incomplete results, but eventual corrections can go equally well to the more cheering or to the worse side.

For example, more frequent and more powerful hurricanes were not predicted beforehand. Yet now we can suspect strong links between warmer tropical oceans and stronger hurricanes. The data is still incomplete, but asking "Is there surely no connection between warmer climate and stronger hurricanes? Can the correlation of higher temperatures and more frequent tropical storms be really accidental?" is just as reasonable and responsible as asking for complete proof of the connection before doing anything.

Did you compare how specific are predicted climate problems and expected economy dire straits under "Kyoto regime"? Actually, I hardly notice any specific predictions how exactly the economy will be ruined by anti-warming measures. Impossibly hard strains on economy are cited as obvious, but the matters are clearly not so straightforward. Does anyone care about the costs of ignoring the climate problem? Reasonable people should hardly expect that exploitation of nature resources can last for long. Bushonomics of "no brainer" stimulation of oil-addiction and disregard of alternative energy possibilities should be reversed sooner rather than later. The global economy is becoming different any way: either we let climate and resources problems escalate, or we take measures to counter them. As we know, free market economy works best when there are reasonable restraints to overcome, not when a government take care of directing each dollar to "optimal" contractor.

P.S. Just for fun, here is an example of more responsible climate skepticism ;-)

Originally posted to ray z on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:52 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll recommend. (none)
    good research etc.

    This goes back to that tiwt David Ignatius.  Who's shrill? Who's reasonable?

    •  Thank you (none)
      Mainly, I try to put the dicussion things in a convincing order. Probably, arguments of global warming proponents are often more complicated than necessary. Maybe the combination of my thoughts is messy or unusual. But I believe that in arguments with hyper-skeptical nuts, one does not have to follow their screeming standards. You better impose your own rationalle. So yeah, Ignatius flaw is that he does not believe in rational and truthful dicourse, and he is ready to accept (and loose) pseudo-discussions with all cheating. But I agree with him on one thing:
      Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Etc.
      Dems should not play too sly, hoping to win by default.
Click here for the mobile view of the site