"Real conservatives value evidence"My sense is that this
title is incorrect. How I see it, real conservatives value their
pre-existing beliefs in specific wishful ideology of "free markets" and
that "it is arrogant to believe that man can change the planet." These
are just a couple of common themes I see coming from conservatives rejecting the
science of climate change. In short, the threat of climate change and the
implications for addressing it don't fit their values and how they view the
world.Acknowledging climate change means that humanity must work
collectively to address it -- but collective action conflicts with
conservatives' values of "individualism" and "freedom" from
government. Thus, accepting climate change as real flies in the face of what is
near and dear to their hearts. In sum, reality doesn't fit their beliefs
about how the world SHOULD be, if their ideology is valid.There are
three key values that are central to conservatives: Economy, freedom, and
family. Until climate "alarmists" tie the issue to these three values
-- noting how climate change IS already impacting the economy, hurting
people's freedom, and a THREAT to family, we'll continue to see
conservatives deny the evidence.
Barry, all we have to do is look at West Virginia as an example of environmental
responsibility.Their open hatred for environmental regulations, federal
government or any form of government involvement in their state is well known.
Then when they have a huge environmental disaster who do they come crying too?
The Federal Government that they hate!Conservatives have one
objective and it is greed. They care nothing for their fellow man, community or
environment. Everything they do is about their own personal gains.
I remember when conservatives believed we had some responsibility to the
environment. It was just before the Koch brothers started pouring money into
Excellent and well reasoned.
Interesting article. What caused the ice age? What caused the ice age to end?
There are some theories but no one knows, not even scientists. What we do know
is the climate always changes and we know that man's use of coal or any
other fossil fuel did not cause the ice age or the end of the ice age. We also
know that the climate is still changing and that is because natural climate
cycles have already turned from warming to cooling regardless of what the
cooling deniers claim. Global temperatures have already been declining for more
than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two
decades or more. Then another cycle will cause change again, as it always does!
In the meantime there is climate change money to be made at the expense of the
poor of the earth, as always!
Great piece, thanks for printing it. I'm going to start calling myself a
genocidal luddite hippy from now on.
Screwdriver.Yeah those Koch Brothers who donated to Bill
Clinton's campaign. These guy are beans compared to The Fords, Rockefellers
and Rothschilds. But since they own the mass media, of course they arent going
to talk about them at all.
@Mountanman"We also know that the climate is still changing and that
is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling
regardless of what the cooling deniers claim"There is no
cooling. We just had the warmest decade on record (and tied the warmest April on
record globally). The most you can say is that there's a pause (I'm
sure if you cherrypick a particular number of years you can find a statistically
insignificant downward slope). You're right to note that natural cycles are
in a cooling mode (like the weakest solar cycle in a century and our string of
La Nina years outnumbering El Nino ones 4 to 1 over the past half dozen years),
but... why have we only paused then? Perhaps there's a positive forcing
balancing the negative natural forcing over the past dozen years.
Scientists understand the Earth's climate pretty well Mountainman. There is
air trapped in ice cores that date back millions years. But,
conspiracy believers won't believe it anyway or listen to anything that
disagrees with their positions. If even 50% of climatologists came
around and said global warming is not caused by mankind I would accept the
science and unsettled. It may be unfinished but it's been conclusive for a
long time. We are changing the weather.The geology of the moon is
unfinished for example, but we're sure it's not made of cheese.
Dear Prof. Bickmore, Thanks for your well reasoned and sensible
article.However, by doing so you are outing yourself, and have declaring yourself one click (Left - because it's about
preserving our environment, you are now out of step with the self-called
"REAL" conservatives.The puritan Tea-Publicans will hence
forth label you as a RINO, and will chase you out of their party.There is NO room for anyone interested in the environment in the Tea-Publican
party.Let them go, Let them have their way.Welcome
to the REAL world Prof. Bickmore - Independent and Unaffiliated.
Mountanman - natural climate changes occur at rates hundreds or thousands of
times more slowly than the climate change we're now causing by pumping CO2
into the air.If you look at the air/land/ocean temperature graphs
for the past hundred years you'll see that in fact temperatures have been
rising, and accelerating. From where do you get the projection that
"global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or
more?"And in terms of "climate change money," dealing
with droughts, floods, storms, and habitat loss is infinitely more expensive
than the relatively simple steps that we should be taking to wean our economy
from fossil fuels. The real "money to be made" is by fossil
fuel interests who are employing the exact-same tactics, and hiring the
exact-same PR firms, that the tobacco industry did to keep us from enacting
public policies about tobacco for decades after the science was conclusive that
tobacco was bad for you.
By acknowledging Global Warming, Prof. Bickmore can't be a REAL
conservative, or a TRUE patriot...that how the puritan Tea-Publicans
@MountanmanI believe the BYU professor knows more about climate
science than you do. I'm pretty sure he's familiar with whatever
science you believe shows global cooling, yet he and most other climate
scientists are extremely confident that human activity is causing climate
change. How is it that there is climate change money to be made at
the expense of the poor? According to Lawrence-Berkeley Labs study in 2012,
weather- and climate- related insurance losses are about $50 billion a year now.
That's why the insurance industry funds climate change research. These are
not academics using government funding, they are business people.That $50 billion in losses per year is not being absorbed by the insurance
industry; it's being passed on to people who buy insurance or rent houses
that are insured or buy products from companies that are insured. It seems to me
that the costs to the poor of climate change may well be higher than the costs
of a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
One fact that is hard to miss in the climate change “debate” is the
psychology of those on either side.On the one side you have people
who are relatively free of bias (or can at least put their biases aside to a
healthy degree) who look at the science, connect the dots – pump a lot of
greenhouse gas into a closed system and the planet warms up… makes sense
– and generally recognize how difficult it is in our modern age to sustain
a scientific consensus approaching anywhere near 90%, especially in the face of
so much moneyed interest trying to disprove it, not to mention the constant
challenges from newly minted PhD’s looking to make a name for themselves
by disproving the consensus view.On the other side – the
cynical moneyed interests aside – are people for whom the implications of
human caused climate change run head long into a preconceived and often
cherished worldview (usually religious). For some, the cognitive dissonance is
simply too much to handle and given the value many people place on religious
beliefs, the science loses (i.e., is abandoned).
OK, real conservatives are definitely better than "Conservatives," but
they're still predisposed to protect the rich and powerful at the expense
of everyone else."Some real conservatives . . . have proposed
excellent, minimally invasive strategies for dealing with climate change, such
as a revenue-neutral carbon tax . . . "FORGET the carbon tax,
and just double the tax rate for higher earners. "Minimally invasive" is
still invasive.If we doubled the tax rate for the highest earners,
it would be 70% . . . still short of the 77% in 1969 when we went to the moon,
fought the Viet Nam war, fought the cold war, and STILL balanced the budget
because we had adequate revenue.A carbon tax would hurt the middle
class, and the middle class has already been harmed enough by 30 years of
Reaganomics.Al Gore wants a carbon tax too, and the reason is to
make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive and thereby induce private industry to
look for affordable green energy alternatives.We have an unnecessary
middle step there. We should instead approach it like we approached the space
race. Just raise taxes for high earners, and let the government outsource
development to private industry, while coordinating and overseeing the process.
@Blue"natural climate changes occur at rates hundreds or thousands of
times more slowly than the climate change we're now causing by pumping CO2
into the air."Technically there are some exceptions with extreme
shifts in shorter periods like a shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation (also referred to as the thermohaline circulation, see: Younger
Dryas for an example of that kind of rapid change). So the current rate of
change is more like "very rare" rather than unprecedented."From where do you get the projection that "global temperatures will
continue to decline for another two decades or more?""He
might've read something on the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation
(AMO),something that is due to be in a cool phase soon. It's a natural
forcing that has cycled in the past half century of temperature records so
it's not going to throw anyone off guard who studies climate. @micawbar"weather- and climate- related insurance losses are about
$50 billion a year now. "Care is needed in separating the
climate change component in that (like the extra storm surge from higher sea
level) rather than attributing it all to it.
Schnee,I didn't mean to attribute all costs to climate change.
I know of no more refined data on this point. But, as the real costs have
doubled over time, I think its fair to say that some of it is climate change
Dr. Bickmore, what warming? What climate change?The real evidence
is on the skeptic's side. The climate models on which doomsday predictions
are based have been wrong so far. Despite the slight increase in CO2 over the
past decade and a half, global temperatures remain flat and climate remains in
its historic bounds. So far, the skeptics are right!The climate
changes humans have adapted to in the past two millennia have been much bigger
than what's happening now (which is nothing). Roman warm period, little
ice age, and now recovery -- we've adapted. So the conservative's
assertion you scoffed at is exactly right.The IPCC isn't
exactly an unbiased or supremely credible scientific source. You may as well
cite Putin about international relations. Where money and power are at stake,
corruption is inevitable, and the proposals coming out from the IPCC and cohorts
are all about consolidation of power and money. And that's why so many
conservatives with noses keen to political shinanigans are skeptical about
global warming. And scientists who can cut through the fog of peer pressure
It's interesting how many of the comments here either 1) dismiss all
conservatives as greedy jerks whose ONLY goal is to protect the wealthy, or 2)
promote right-wing conspiracy theories and debunked pseudo-science that could
easily be looked up on the Internet. Look, the world isn't that simple.
To my liberal friends: Do you really want to help drive people like
me out of the Republican Party? Is that really a healthy situation for the
country? Or would you rather have people like me stick around and try to drive
the extremists back into the attic? Broad-brush dismissals of all conservatives
as greedy jerks who hate the poor just make you look like the right-wing
extremists you despise. That is, it makes you look like you haven't
bothered to get to know many conservatives, and you are incapable of nuanced
thinking.To my Republican friends: Objections like, "climate
changes naturally all the time" are just absurd. Do some homework, and stop
listening to anti-intellectual blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. My
impression is that those guys talk so much every day that they couldn't
possibly have time to study any issue carefully.
micawber,Here is the data you desire. The problem is that as
climate-related risks have risen, so have populations and assets in
disaster-prone areas, so some of the rising disaster costs are just due to the
fact that there is more costly stuff to destroy. However, we have also gotten
better at building things to withstand disasters, so that would tend to lower
disaster costs. Munich Re (the re-insurance giant) released a study of disaster
costs over time, and showed that non-climate-related disaster costs (e.g., from
earthquakes) were going up at a much slower rate than climate-related disaster
costs (e.g., floods and hurricanes). A friend of mine wrote a nice article
about this recently. I don't think the DN lets us post links in the
comments, but if you Google "dana nuccitelli guardian roger pielke" it
should be the first hit.
I remember when "conservatives" denying the Scientific consensus - and
prophesying of economic doomsdays -- with "Acid Rain", "Lead in
Gasoline", "Mercury in Water", "Ozone depleting toxins" and
"Tobacco doesn't cause cancer".Fear not, They'll be swept aside with this soon as well...
I just do not see why the solution to everything is a tax. I
recognize the need for government, but instead of a servant it had morphed into
a dangerous master over all aspects of our lives. When others say government I
picture the members of the House, Senate and Executive branch and don't see
much intellect, character, or leadership.I see men and women who are
motivated by political power and that spells money in any way, shape and form
that will further their own, personal selfish interests.Sorry, I
will not give willingly more money to the Feds than absolutely necessary because
of graft, theft and mismanagement.Mankind's attempt(s) to
control his environment can be a fool's errand. Check out the Corps of
Engineers Mississippi flood controls and the results on the ecosystem. Everyone has his own personal set of facts to defend his point of
view.I do accept that people are fearful, afraid. They have
"lost heart" in life and fear the dark unknown. Their solution is to
control as much of life, their own and others as possible without a clear vision
or goal. Read it in a book somewhere.
"Sensible Scientist",The only world in which the climate
changes over the last two millennia have been much larger than that in the past
century is the fantasy world constructed by people who don't understand the
meaning of "global reconstruction". And the only world in which global
temperatures have been "flat," rather than "rising less
quickly", is the fantasy world in which recent investigations of how
temperature is reconstructed around the poles never happened. (See a recent
paper by Cowtan and Way.) Beyond that, the problem with your
reasoning is that climatologists can do a reasonable job at reconstructing the
reasons for the natural variations--differences in solar output, volcanics, and
greenhouse gases. And if they have a reasonable idea of how greenhouse gases
naturally cause variations in temperature, they have a reasonable basis for
projecting how anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions might affect the
temperature. Greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases, no matter the origin.
Summarily dismissing such projections until they come true is not very sound
policy, and certainly couldn't be called "Conservative".
"Insane" is more like it.
All conservatives or Republicans do not disbelieve that well documented climate
change effects are going to change the world as we currently know it. However,
we don't hear them speak up very often. It would seem they are cowed by
their radical brother/sisters on the right. Or that they prefer political power
today over their children's and grandchildren's inheritance.The global problem we have with resources and climate change will not go away.
We get closer to those tipping points wherein the water is unfit to drink,
oceanic pollution/warming ruins the fishing industry and the bad weather becomes
increasingly catastrophic (among other things). These effects of our poor
planning and coordination worldwide don't know political parties and dogma.
I often wonder how these parents and grandparents live with
themselves, knowing they have facilitated our global environmental decline.
This is infinitely more important than your tax rate, same sex marriage or
Dr Bickmore, the GOP is a lost cause. Sorry, but it is completely in control of
the Koch bros. It is beyond repair. If you don't feel like joining the
Democrats then you should find another party because the GOP is just beyond
repair.Unless you become a billionaire and outbid the Koch Bros in
"free speech" there's no way you won't be attacked and
ostracized by your GOP. You haven't left the party. The party has left you.
The Lord will hold each of us accountable on how we treat the earth. If we
continue in our sin and continue to pollute, pillage, and destroy, I fear
greatly that the punishments of The Lord will be upon us.
Re: ". . . climatologists can do a reasonable job at reconstructing the
reasons for the natural variations . . . ."Sorry, but, as any
actual scientist can tell you, that's just not true.There are
as many theories as climate "scientists," not just as to reasons for
natural variations, but as to both their existence and extent. The most robust
finding of all climatological research is that honest scientists can't tell
us why variations occur. Only when.And that holds truer today than
ever.It's a well documented fact that conservative surrender on
a carbon tax would have absolutely no effect on the climate. But it quite
clearly would destroy our economy and give unfair advantage to our competitors
in China, Russia, and India.
@Sensible Scientist"Despite the slight increase in CO2 over the past
decade and a half, global temperatures remain flat"We know
natural forcings always exist. You say that temperatures are flat but we're
in the weakest solar cycle in a century and most of the past half dozen years
have been La Nina years. What if we had an equation that looked like: global temperature change = natural forcing + anthropogenic forcing. Then we start filling things in like flat temperatures so ~0 = nat +
anthro. What if the natural forcing were negative due to things like
that weak solar cycle we're in? To balance the equation you'd need
positive anthropogenic warming to get to global temperatures being flat. Due to
the fact that natural forcings always exist, that means it's not necessary
that a pause in temperatures means that there's no anthropogenic warming
component still at play.
Dr. Bickmore,Thank you not only for your well-reasoned article but
your follow up comments as well. If you have followed the comments here at DN
under climate change articles, you are aware of the denier nonsense we are
constantly forced to confront, which is a challenge 1) because most of us are
not scientists and 2) we have day jobs (i.e., the opportunity costs of debunking
every denier claim is high). So we appreciate knowledgeable voices
like yours stepping up… we could use many more.I hope you are right
about conservatives in general but you wouldn’t know it by listening to
the voices that speak for them over the last few years (and that went crazy
train off the rails immediately following the election of 2008). But
I fear that until there are a series of issues that greatly discredit the wing
nuts, Real Maverick may be right. The moneyed interests drown out voices like
yours and the SC seems bent and letting them get even louder.Special
thanks to DN for printing Dr. Bickmore’s article and keeping the market of
Dr Bickmore, when asked about my politics I always say that I am an Eisenhower
Republican, which means that I often come across as a liberal Democrat in the
context of today's politics. It sounds like you may have the same problem.
I'm surprised Dr. Bickmore isn't better informed about the state of
climate science. There are some of us who pay attention to the work of Roy
Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr. and Sr., John Christy,
Fred Singer, Steve McIntyre, Patrick Michaels, Lubos Motl, Jeff Condon,
Christopher Monckton, and a host of others, not just the alarmists. There are
several conclusions I have personally drawn from my observations:1.
Atmospheric CO2 as a driver of temperature pales in comparison to a number of
other factors - so much so that nobody has succeeded in extracting a CO2 signal
from the temperature data despite decades of trying and billions of dollars
spent on the effort.2. I do not trust anyone, scientist or
otherwise, who claims "the debate is over" and "there is a
consensus" when in fact there has never been a debate and there is no
consensus, particularly so when they also have a history of hiding data and
engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of debating the issue.3.
Government funding of scientific research has resulted in corruption within the
scientific community and misrepresentation of the true state of the science. The
system is being gamed.
The idea that since we can't be 100% certain about climate change, we
should do nothing, is similar to saying that if we're not 100% certain that
a gun is loaded, we should go ahead and let children play with it.
Tyler D - I can't speak for all religious people, but I find
much in my religion (LDS) about taking care of the Earth that God gave us. I
know many who agree. While I may lean conservative in most societal issues, I
also strongly believe that man was given stewardship over God's creation in
the Garden of Eden. I would bet that God is not happey with what we
are doing with His creation.Those arguing against action on global
warming are doing so out of an ecomonic rationale, not a religious one. They
don't want to cut into their profits to "conserve". True, most
fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives (and religious). One of the problems in public debate today is the ease with which people are
stereotyped and categorized. It is easy to do, and all sides do it. However,
it blocks debate and compromise; two tools that we need desperately now.
Well said, Dr. Bickmore. A conservationist is the truest of conservatives. This
conservative narrative needs to fight for its rightful place in the Republican
To "Screwdriver" actually scientists don't understand the
earth's atmosphere very well. Recent headlines have shown us how little
scientists understand. We have learned over the past 7 years that the climate
scientists had the effects of clouds wrong. They don't know where the CO2
all goes. Only recently are climate scientists paying closer attention to the
sun and solar energy output. It was only recently realized that soot has caused
some glaciers and ice fields to melt more rapidly than expected.There is a lot that scientists have yet to figure out. Right now they
can't explain why we haven't had warming in over 16 years despite
their models saying we should be warming.To "Blue" actually,
there are period in history where the earth's climate has warmed more
rapidly than today. Plus, there are periods of thousands of years where the
earth's temperature was warmer than today. What should be asked is why do
we use the end of an ice age as a baseline? Shouldn't we be using a 1000
year average, or something to account for relatively short periods of warm and
It is not often that an op-ed contributor participates in the comment thread as
Dr. Bickmore is doing, but I appreciate his input and responses to the critics.
I hope the DesNews chooses to suspend the four comment limit in his case. It is
fair that an author have the opportunity to address the issues raised here by
multiple parties.procuradorfiscal: "...as any ACTUAL scientist
can tell you..." [emphasis added]I would love to compare Dr.
Bickmore's curriculum vitae of with those of any of his critics here
(Sensible Scientist and procuradorfiscal included). The Tooele sage is fond of
dismissing any opinion not congruent with his own as the product of someone who
is not a "real" person (or Utahn or conservative or scientist, as the
case may be). No True Scotsman Fallacy, anyone?
Barry,I understand your concerns about the liberals who can be as
blind and irrational as the far-right-wingers. But if you are looking for
reasons to leave the Republican Party, there are probably five times as many
good economic arguments for such a move as climate-change arguments. As far as I
can tell, conservative economics will destroy our society long before climate
change does. In that case, the climate-change furor may be irrelevant in the
long run, because at some point in the not-too-distant future, the oil-fueled,
resource-consuming, growth-addicted, inequality-producing economy that is being
accelerated by conservative economic theory will collapse under the weight of
its own internal illogic. And if you can follow that last sentence, you
definitely earned your PhD.
Bickmore makes the classic liberal elitist comment. "anti-intellectual
blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. My impression is that those guys
talk so much every day that they couldn't possibly have time to study any
issue carefully" You don't know how much they have read, only they
have a different take than you. You got your letters by reading and studying
books and articles, and a school awarded you a degree. But if anybody else
study results in a different opinion they must be illiterate. What this says to
me is taking a class from you must be worthless because it is overseen by one
that thinks he has all knowledge. You have like all elitists determined that
anyone else reading the same books and materials you have read but not issued a
parchment could not possibly be as smart as you. And since no student could ever
be as smart as you then why would they take your classes.
jsf:Have you listened to Glenn and Rush for five minutes?
Oh, and have you noticed that only "conservatives" use the term
"elitist" to describe people who know more than they do? Fascinating
that Bickmore is now a "classic liberal elitist," even though he is a
self-described conservative. But this is how the tea party purifies its ranks.
If you are at all favorable to science, watch out.
No kent an elitist thinks they know more because they are, not because of their
knowledge or wisdom. I would not presume to limit this to just liberals, but
progressives. Let us just change the elitists to progressives elitists that
claim anyone that has not a degree could never have learned anything from
reading or study.
Wow, jsf, what incredible leaps of logic. First you paint Mr.
Bickmore as a liberal elitist (whatever that means) just because he recognizes
Beck and Limbaugh as anti-intellectual (accurately so), and then you change it
to that he is a "progressive". May I suggest that you know very little
about Mr. Bickmore's politics. You definately know nothing about his
politics from his statement about the blowhards Beck and Limbaugh. All you learn
from that is that he is astute. But then you go on to claim that Mr.
Bickmore believes that anyone who disagrees with him is illiterate. Where in the
world did you get that idea!?Then you claim Mr. Bickmore believes he
has "all knowledge", and you go on to say that he believes all people
that have not read the same books as he has is not as smart as he is, and that
he thinks no student could be as smart as he is. Mr. Bickmore does
not need my defense; any thoughtful person can clearly see that your comments
are lacking substance.I only point it out to illustrate the kind of
argument certain types of people make.
Within my faith (LDS), we are told that man has dominion over the planet. But
with this dominion comes stewardship. I have no problem saying that we are
failing on that other end. I have no problem with the fact that God has let us
have this dominion because we can alter the Earth. I believe this alteration is
mostly negative and we need to change course sooner rather than later. I feel
that many "conservatives" if they thought about it, could have this same
view and lose their "conservative" values. Also, there might be much
money to be made in "saving the Earth."
Professor Bickmore is learning what many of us have known now for some time:
the argument is not over differences of opinion between Republicans and
Democrats but about political extremism. In attempting a dialogue with those of
the thoughtless, ideologically driven hard right, reason is futile.
I tried to comment on both of the opinion pieces mentioned by Dr. Bickmore
stating that it was irresponsible to give those authors a voice concerning
climate change since they know nothing about it, but my comments were rejected.
I had Dr. Bickmore in mind as someone who the Deseret News could turn to for a
well-reasoned opinion on the matter. We should only give voices on this topic to
Also, what is the purpose for limiting readers and authors to a certain number
of comments? There are many comments from which I would love to read a response
from Dr. Bickmore. Is there really a reason to limit his comments?
A great problem is created by standard present value calculations in
"mainstream" economics when doing cost/benefit analyses. Such present
value formulas hammer projects with significant upfront costs and benefits
extending into the future - like with CO2 control. In this "mainstream"
economics fails to perform. Marxian analyses do not do present
value calculations. This is good because the survival of our posterity is as
important as current profits.
The problem is that many of us don't trust anything the IPCC writes or
says. They have turned themselves into a money making political group.
@ LovelyDeseretOh,of course,they all have to be cheats and liars.
You cannot believe anything they say, let alone trust them. Do you realize how
lame that sounds?
So when was global climate constant? And what is the ideal global climate that
we've drifted away from? Could it be that ulterior motives are
at play? And what an easy target to use as your bully whip...something as
unpredictable and uncontrollable as global climate. Even the scam artists
running this charade concede that our greatest efforts at affecting climate
going forward (through heavy taxation, control, and giving money to those
sounding the alarm) would have little effect.Thanks for sounding the
alarm. There is no solution. Even human extinction would not affect global
climate.By the way, our climate has never been consistent and there
is no standard. Get over yourselves. You're not that powerful and
we're not all that stupid.
Actually, MapleDon, there is a climate that's ideal for us: the relatively
stable climate that has held for the 10 or 12 millennia during which we
developed agriculture and went on to create a worldwide civilization with many
seacoast cities.Despite what you believe, we are now pushing that
climate away. Evidence accumulates day by day that what replaces it will not be
Sensible scientist:Forget the scientific case /for/ global warming,
since you aren't going to look at that anyway. You assert that "The
real evidence is on the skeptic's side." If that assertion were true,
by now you wouldn't have to be making it. Everyone would have heard on the
evening news how the threat of global warming had been overblown. The
announcement would have brought crowds into the streets to celebrate the removal
of that worry. Whoever had provided valid evidence removing it would be lionized
by the governments of the world, would probably win a Nobel Prize, and certainly
would soon command more wealth than any climate scientist could dream of. And by
the way, climate scientists would be just as glad as anybody else. You see, they
have children and grandchildren too.Of course, none of this has
happened -- nor is it likely to. Think about why that is.