Wow. The Atlantic rips Penn State and Muir-Russell a new one.
Some excerpts follow:
He believes in the issue and likes the carbon tax:
I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax.
But he hates corruption:
I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.
He gets it, scientists behaving badly help nobody, least of all their cause. Penn State and the Muir-Russell fiascos only compound the damage:
In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy. I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
At least somebody in MSM is starting to see that whitewash affects climate science, and we aren’t just talking paint.
Phil says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Your argument is totally and fundamentally flawed.
Steinar Midtskogen says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Yet another flawed argument. Why must CO² be reduced? You are missing the whole point. You say CO² must be reduced only because you have read the rubbish science as published in the journals.
They don’t have to worry, Prince Chuckles is on the case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/prince-charles-attacks-climate-sceptics
James Sexton says:
” Or how wealthier nations have higher standards of living?”
More importantly, let’s say we’re all horribly wrong and that the worst projections are dead on. If we are in for an ecological disaster, who is going to get hurt the most? POOR PEOPLE. If you increase taxes on every level of production, you’re going to have MORE poor people. If you decrease taxes and grow the world’s economies as fast and as much as possible, you’re going to have fewer poor (and dead) people in a disaster.
Again, who dies in a disaster? Poor folks. Rich folks generally do just fine. (go ahead, check any disaster you like, start with Katrina and go back, or the Irish potato famin and go forward) We need more global wealth. Anything that gets in the way of that violates the precautionary principle in the most egregious fashion.
The Warmers changed their mantra from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because it was convenient (embracing Earth’s modus operandi) and because they really didn’t know where things were going regarding the climate. We need to beat the drum that “climate change” is natural–that man has precious little impact on it and no possibility of controlling it, except perhaps impacting it to his detriment. Their embrace of “Climate Change” shows how little they really know about the subject.
I think this is the third article he has written and I have seen on the climategate mails – although I didn’t think the original 2 were in the atlantic. The first one was basically saying the mails were a concern but he thought the science was basically sound. That also appeared in the ft. The later 2 were far more critical, and weren’t published in the FT. It would be interesting to know what the relationship was there. I have long since given up reading the FT because they appear to just make a sophisticated argument for whatever the beaurocrats want them to say, and since the economist is owned by the same (pearson) group would not really expect them to be any different. I note their chief economist laid into one of their commenters as “right wing” for suggesting a bloated government sector may have contributed to the recession.
Here in Canada we still have to listen to David Suzuki tell us that the climate science is sound, the evidence is overwhelming and being a skeptic is NOT demonstrating intellectual rigour. The following article is carried in all the major newspapers as gospel.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/Suzuki/2010/07/14/14711551.html
The anger is real. These faux pas’s have totally killed any hope the Extremeist Mob had of World Revolution via the UN and/or Global Treaty using AGW as the key. If you’re whole being had been centered on achieving this end, wouldn’t you be just a little miffed too?
Why would anyone need to create a bureaucracy to tax carbon, when removing subsidies for coal and oil has the same or greater impact on price, and removes a market distortion rather than adding a new one….
“Curiouser and curiouser…”
EC
I’ve actually got a lot of time for the Prince, for all that he’s misinformed over Climate Science. He’s been beaten with more unjust condemnations than I would wish on my enemies. Not least regarding Diana. So I’m writing to him like I wrote to Father Dease, to give him another chance.
Interestingly, someone like Clive Crook can express the same ideas as a climate sceptic and whereas Crook’s opinions are taken under consideration, the sceptic is tarred and feathered. Aside from that bit about supporting a carbon tax, may I just point out, we said that first!
stephen richards says:
July 15, 2010 at 1:01 am
I meant burning less fossil fuel (regardless whether the resulting CO2 is left in the atmosphere or stored in the ground or whatever). The fossil fuel wont last for many centuries. So we can either make a gentle transition to something else while there is plenty of time, or we can, well, what is your better way?
Whaddayaknow? Whitewashgate hits the MSM.