You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up

Mark Noonan, over at Blogs for Bush, is concerned about the recent Alaska trip made by John McCain and Hillary Clinton–and its implications for spending on global warming. The article cites a claim in the Irish Independent that bring global warming to and end will cost half the world’s GDP…no warrant, no support, but a heck of a sound bite.

And then Noonan lays out the compelling argument that:

As I’ve said before: We are still not entirely sure if the world really is warming up; if the world is warming up, we are not entirely sure if human agency is even partially responsible; if the world is warming and humans are even partially responsible, there is nothing we can do – short of mass suicide – to even slightly slow down the effects

Note the lack of citation. In his expert role as a politco, he knows that we cannot be certain about global warming. And then there is Ian Murray at the National Review, who nakedly admits that:

Senator McCain should stop hiding behind the science

The comments on the site are even better, repeating the argument that “there is no conclusive evidence”, “no reputable scientist will sign up to the Global Warming Scam”, and my favorite, “Bob”‘s insight that, “I have long believed that the global warming is due more to climate changes than human activity.”

The point of including these comments is not entirely to mock pseudo-scientific stupidity. Not entirely. It gets to the larger issue of the Right’s willingness to repeat the same lies over and over again until enough people start to believe them.

Hell, even President Bush’S EPA believes that global warming is caused by humans, and that there are sensible steps individuals and countries can take to reduce their emissions. New (which probably includes a reputable scientist or two) says that “But most scientists believe we are under-estimating the dangers” of global warming, concluding in an editorial that:

The climate change conference suggests scientific peer pressure may have led to gross underestimates of the potential scale of global warming

THE good news for climate sceptics is that a speaker at a major British conference on climate change agreed that arch-sceptic Pat Michaels had a point. The bad news is that it was Myles Allen, the Oxford physicist who recently grabbed the headlines by suggesting that 11 °C of warming could be in the pipeline.

Allen was underlining what others had said off-platform: that the desire for consensus has too often led the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to don blinkers. This has not only blotted out the arguments of sceptics, but also sidelined results from climate models that keep producing “outlier” predictions of horrendous warming. As one scientist said last week: “by ignoring the outliers, IPCC has failed for 10 years to investigate the possible effects of more extreme climate change.”

Disdain for science and optimism that global warming will go away are not appropriate policies–and misleading the public with false information can only make the inevitable impact of global climate change worse.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba has been writing about Montana politics since 2005 and teaching high school English since 2000. He's a former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.
His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.
In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • When the majority greenhouse gas is water vapour ( 97%), I wonder how CO2 ( less than 1%) can have such a drastic effect. And why is it that the CO2 crowd never refers to water vapour ? The computer models dont even address its effect in the climate equation adequately. Could that be why the models the IPCC are referencing ,are consistently overestimating temperature rise, and need to be readjusted every couple of years ?

Latest PostCast

Support Our Work!

Subscribe Via E-mail


Which Democratic Candidate for Governor Do You Support Today?

Send this to a friend