"It astonished me that people were allowing ideology to cloud their judgment on anthropogenic climate change, choosing to disregard the 97% of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the causes of global warming that support the theory, instead favoring positions on climate change that suit their worldviews."Some skeptics of climate catastrphe may be allowing their idiology to cloud their judgement. But is your side doing the same thing? Those 97% studies have been found to be of very poor quality. Check out what Jose Duarte and Tom Fuller have to say:
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
I went over an old Disqus thread at this post for the NCSE's blog. It was a new blogger named Kate Heffernan introducing herself. She is interested in climate and referred to 97% consensus papers. So I fired off a comment:
Monday, June 22, 2015
I read this post by Naomi Oreskes at billmoyers.com and fired off this snarky comment:
It was put into moderation and removed. It was a bit hasty and shrill and I could have checked the spelling a bit more. I don't like blowing a chance to be heard on a post by a major climate figure like Oreskes, so I thought I would make an apology and try again:Maybe delaying action is a good thing. Right now climate action consists of subsidizing a bunch of boondogles like shipping woodchips across the Atlantic to burn in power plants in the UK or filling the landscape with huge white elephants that give intermitent power with no credible prospects for storage. Advances in next generation nuclear plants could make them all superfluous. Lomborg has it right -- more research.Prevent future authoritarianism? It looks to me like a ruse for loony, delusional, economics and engineering illiterate leftist to grab power.