Item — HN Reader

This article is useless and skewed. Im from Australia and the senator in question is a known skeptic who benefits from promoting those interests who would have most to loose in a carbon constrained economy. "Skeptics" continue to benefit from saying oh its not happening. A senator taking a (likley) free trip to the US for a conference against climate change, big news!

You might find this more informative: http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

At least you have some facts to check. The wsj article is mere hyperbole.

For less bias in the news you read check out newscred.com (no affiliation).

2 comments

From the article: "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02."

I'm all for cleaning up emissions, but I'm for it because I like the atmosphere to be clean. Fear tactics are what's been driving "green-[A-Za-z]" for a long time and I think it's important to reexamine and do it for the right reasons.

and temperature over the short term is a bad reason to change opinions. skepticism SHOULD be growing because the climate change advocates are using cherry picked statistics and bullying.

'Since 2001' is just 8 years. Climatologists will generally agree that 30 years is the minimum time to consider when talking about global climate change, because of the natural rhythms and fluctuations year to year.

Saying that the last 8 years disproves climate change is like saying that last week was warmer than the week before and therefore we're heading into summer and not into winter.

However, there's probably not too much harm being done in waiting another 10 years before we take this more seriously. 10 years from now if we're having record heatwaves again everywhere, I expect most skeptics will start coming around.

Some remarks:

1) the fact that the senator in question benefits from denying global warming does not mean that the global warming pseudo-science is true. Politicians can never be trusted. Period. And you seem to have fallen under the spell of the ad hominem fallacy.

2) Not all skeptics are the same. My skepticism stems from the fact that I do have a solid education in the sciences (unlike the average citizen), not from the fact that I stand to gain from denying global warming.

3) Last but not least: "most to loose" should be "most to lose". Generally speaking, people with a proper sense of spelling are taken more seriously than those who lack it. Maybe I am being pedantic, but if I were reading your CV and you made spelling errors like this, I would think twice before hiring you. This is an observation, not an attack.