Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues. Full Story »
Posted by Jon Mitchell - via Joey Baker (t), Josh_Young (t), Kaizar Campwala (t)
This is not journalism. It is an advocacy piece promoting the author's major business interests. It has so many flaws and lies, and smears of respected scientists that one hardly knows where to begin! The "latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts" refers to the IPCC report, and the 3000 includes secretaries, office administrators, graduate students and a host of other people of limited expertise, right up to the head of the IPCC. The author has little knowledge of science, and does not read the peer-reviewed literature, or he would know that it was warmer during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods than it is today, and that in 2011 it is cooler than the lowest projected temperature for this year by the IPCC. He also does not know the difference between climate and weather. And he is unaware of the real droughts in the U.S. of the 1930s. He is unaware of the major role played by solar cycles and the fact that many leading climate scientists are now worried about an extended solar minimum and substantial cooling of the climate.
The author is well known for his anti-science actions while Vice President, and his extreme partisanship is evident in this piece. He promote "cap and trade", not knowing that it has been a big failure wherever it has been tried, or that climate experts see these kinds of business propositions as having negligible impact on future climate. Finally, it is especially offensive to this reviewer to see Frederick Douglass quoted near the end, as the author is opposed to everything Douglass stood for.