http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203711104577201483976477936.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket
***************
"We must stop assuming that a thing which has never been done before probably cannot be done at all." (Donald M. Nelson)
***************
Al Gore sent a couple of his representative to my office this week to argue for global warming as a people-caused thing: "Anthropogenic?" Really? I, of course, felt outnumbered. I immediately declared that I would stop driving my SUV (actually, I don't have an SUV, but, if I did, I would at least stop driving it until I needed to go home).
During the course of our discussions, the Al Gore representatives chastised me for even reading the Wall Street Journal because it is nothing more than a "tool" for Rupert Murdoch. I promised I would swear off the WSJ (until I need it again for information I use in my classes).
Fortunately for me, I noticed in today's capitalist tool (the WSJ) that some brave souls had responded with letters to the Editor about a letter to the Editor signed by 37 people. The letter signed by 37 people was a response to an Op-Ed signed by 16 people (1/27: "No Need to Panic About Global Warming"). All these letters signed by multiple people! Wow! And they seem to be "comparing" each other's "titles." I guess some people are more important than other people.
How do I make sense of all this? Well, here goes: Kevin Trenberth led the response (to the 1/27 Op-Ed "No Need to Panic...") of 37 scientists (2/1) claiming that skeptics were unqualified to have an opinion about global warming because they are not "climate specialists." Again, really? Richard Lindzen, who wrote a brilliant article toward year end 2009 on global warming in this same (WSJ) capitalist tool (an article I was privileged to comment on - go back and look), is professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT. He was one of the original 16 "signees" to the 1/27 Op-Ed.
It would appear that the approach being taken by the Trenberth's is to shout down opponents to anyone's position because that's much easier than dialogue.
But, then, I don't want to confuse this situation with the facts. Trenberth goes on to say, "...if you have a heart condition, you should consult a heart surgeon, not a dentist."
So, as Peter Wilson says in his letter: "Kevin Trenberth and his colleagues..." want to "Marginalize your opponents by demeaning them ("dentists practicing cardiology")..."
I'm going to go with Thomas H. Lauer who says in his letter that Trenberth "...gives the game away when he pronounces that a transition to a low-carbon economy will drive decades of economic growth. Only climate scientists are qualified to opine on climate, but somehow they are also qualified to explain global economics and political strategy."
So, I'm going to try to keep a low profile and ride my bike to school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So let me get this straight: All these guys at "unbiased" organizations like the CATO Institute are invalidating said letter because it opines about the potential economic benefits to exploring alternative energy for a couple of sentences?
ReplyDeleteSeems like an airtight rebuttal to me. *sarcasm off*
For the record, I know I never said any such thing about the Wall Street Journal this week. What I did say was the original article was essentially propaganda - it promotes a slanted, fringe view of global warming science as mainstream fact, while completely ignoring the actual mainstream view or it's proponents. If you want to call that news, feel free. I obviously beg to differ.
At best, it is shoddy, irresponsible journalism, and as someone who enjoys the Journal, you should demand more accountability, not encourage irresponsibility, regardless of whether said irresponsibility supports your beliefs.
Just my humble opinion. The original article was anything but balanced. Even a global warming skeptic should be able to admit that.
You can guilt trip CH into riding his bike to school all you want. Without a significant change in the scientific community, nobody will significantly increase enforcement of carbon regulation.
ReplyDeleteAuditors, sell-side financial analysts, rating agencies, and regulators basically say pass or caution. They can measure companies better than scientists can agree on global temperature variations, right?
Why does everyone hate on Al and Rupert? They just want to entertain.
Josh: thank you for your sense of humor! Craig, I always appreciate your inputs - I am but a Capitalist Tool!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to point out that the opinion of the scientific community (minus 16) is pretty close to a consensus that global climate change is real - regardless of cause. I agree that politicians muddy the water because they lack knowledge and always have a position. However, how can it be a bad thing to cut down on consumption or choose
ReplyDeleteto recycle in your local community? It seems that we can be making better choices for ourselves as individuals that might have a larger impact.
ReplyDelete