Climate Policy

[Jester]

Yes, the site with a pat unsubstantiated answer for any point any skeptic might ever bring up. Very useful for shutting down a debate.

Oh, now I'm shutting down the debate. Marvellous. You asked if I had any refutation of Milloy's points. Did you not want to see one? Or do you have some specific, rather than stylistic, issue with the answers there? There are links to realclimate if you're wanting a more in-depth answer.

Perhaps Dr. Hansen's political activities make him a hero to the Al Gore crowd, and perhaps to you, but to me it tends to make me more skeptical of what he says, and what he writes since he has an obviously extreme bias. A bias so huge it probably affects his judgment on science matters as well.

I'm not interested in heroes. I'm interested in what's true, what isn't, and what we should do about it.

How does an "opinion" differ from a "bias"? Milloy is biased. His politics and his allegiances to industry clearly pre-date and determine his "scientific" opinions. James Hansen is a scientist. He was among the first to make a major prediction of global warming in his scientific work. He then becomes a major public face of the effort to mitigate global warming. He becomes an ardent supporter of efforts to curb climate change. Therefore, he must have had a bias in his past science based on his future politics? He came from climate science to advocacy, not the other way around. And he's no party hack. He's consistently criticised anyone whose position he disagrees with on this topic, including both Clinton and Obama.

Even Einstein got political with his science. It's hardly a new game in town. While we shouldn't mistake the two, holding public opinions does not erase one's scientific credentials. Scientists have a right to speak out with their expertise about things that they believe follow from it. It's not like, say, economists are shy about doing the same, and probably with much less scientific basis.

But whatever, throw everything Hansen has ever said or done into the trash, for all it matters. Deal with any of the zillions of other climate scientists, less political and less radical, but whose opinions on the science of climate change, and the need to react to it, are no different.

It is Al Gore who says that any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. That is politicizing science, and sending a chilling message throughout the academy. I'm glad there are heretics like Dr. Dyson who have the credentials to withstand the political scorn, and attacks.

Sure. And as soon as they do some climate science, rather than just yakking to the media, their attacks will seem more like scientific criticism, and less like speculation. Al Gore no doubt exaggerates, although he is not wrong to point out that non-AGW theories sit at the margins and not in the mainstream of climate science, nor that many of AGW's high-profile opponents are on industry payrolls, although not all. Dyson has a skeptical mind, and that's fine. But while his doubts may slightly qualify existing science, they certainly don't overturn the basic picture: the planet is warming, it is very likely CO2 doing the lion's share of it, and it is very likely our emissions that are behind it. We continue at our peril.

-Jester