Global warming denialist/skeptic/minimalist/whatever Jason Steorts says global warming hero James Hansen agrees with the minimalist position…What Steorts says will happen if we do nothing is what Hansen says could happen if we take some giant steps…..

Regarding Dr. Michaels, I quote from a post I made at Huffington Post:

Hansen is a hero, and an understated and gentlemanly one at that. Krugman yesterday detailed the foul way in which Pat Michaels misrepresented Hansen’s predictions in a public presentation, effectively swift boating him. Hansen’s response was to call for more genial discourse.

Well, for the record, here is a comparison-

Hansen-member of the national academy of science-has thousands of citations to his papers by other scientists (a citation means a reference in a subsequent paper and measures the influence of the original author).His most cited paper is a classic with 1072 citations.

Pat Michaels-has a total of 310 citations for ALL THE PAPERS IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. He’s a research professor (not professor) at Virginia who must hustle his entire salary off of of grants or the occasional teaching gig, and receives primary support from the fossil fuel industry.

In other words, Hansen, a scientific giant, was swiftboated by Michaels, a scientific pygmy (as measured by his citations–one Hansen paper beats Michaels’ entire career) and the media dutifully scribed this attack in the name of balance.

The comments about Michaels in the post only serve to underscore the differences between these two men and the quality of the skeptics vs. the mainstream. You can go through this again and again–with the exception of Richard Lindzen who has had a distinguished career, the skeptics are generally scientists who are either weak on their climate research but strong on other topics (Baliunas), somewhat successful on climate research but possessed of a contrarian streak (Spencer, Christy, Gray) and an overreliance on the Colbertian `gut’ over real reason, or just plain weak on the science (Balling, Michaels, Singer). This is all as measured by the citation index alluded to above. It is not merely subjective–there is measurable merit to these claims.

On the other hand, climate scientists in the mainstream like James Hansen, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, and Gerry Mahlman have had long and distinguished careers and as a group look much stronger than the `skeptics’.

The news should be telling this story and weighting the skeptics by their current scientific street cred.

Even if there is a lot of water around US (yes not north and south), there is more intelligent human beings around the world, maybe it’s time for you to talk and LISTEN to others, discuss.

And hey, you whities (talking about ppl with white skin), you are not native americans (the indians are), most of you are originating from Europe – so please talk with us and let us – together – make the world a better place.

Steorts… is not contending that humans have not contributed to global warming, but that the extent of the human impact is unknown and that to declare that humans are responsible for the bulk is premature.

DUDE, WHAT IS WRONG IN TAKING CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT?
Even if humankind is not responsible for the whole global warming (which, of course, we are) what the hell is wrong in fighting for a better place for everyone? WHAT IS WRONG WITH FUEL CELLS, SOLAR-DRIVEN DEVICES, WIND TURBINES, TIDAL AND WAVE ENERGY, EVEN OTECs…? THESE ARE TECHNOLOGIES IN BIRTH, YET WE ARE THE ONES WHO LIVE IN THE STONE AGES? Since the invention of Gasoline and Diesel Engines, there has not been a significant breakthrough in these technologies, except for electronic control, turbochargers and, if you want, catalizers. If they burn, they pollute, a fact from combustion science.

Who??? I don’t know anything about any cocktail receptions. I do know who Bill Buckley is. He’s the guy who spoke up about the war. Better to come to your common sense late than never.

When conservatives finally talk seriously about the risks having to do with climate change, and not try to cherry pick what they like from the science, and take the peer review process seriously, then I’ll take them seriously on the subject.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/inconvenient_myspace.php

http://www.suanews.com/articles/1994/globalwarminglibelsuitsettled.htm

A public relations campaign by Dr. Lancaster in late 1993 in the
Boston area failed to elicit any local or national attention for his
side of the case. More spectacularly, an attempt by Vice President
Gore and his staff to get the case aired on ABC News Nightline and
to besmirch the reputations of some scientists who disagreed with
the senator about global warming not only failed; it backfired.
On February 24, 1994, Ted Koppel revealed on his Nightline
program that Vice President Gore had called him and suggested
that Mr. Koppel investigate the political and economic forces behind
the “anti-environmental”movement. In particular, Vice President
Gore had urged Mr. Koppel to expose as fact that several
U.S. scientists who had voiced skeptical views about greenhouse
warming were receiving financial support from the coal industry
and/or groups such as the Lyndon Larouche organization or Reverend
Moon’s Unification Church.

Mr. Koppel didn’t do the vice president’s bidding and asked
rhetorically, “Is this a case of industry supporting scientists who
happen to hold sympathetic views, or scientists adapting their
views to accommodate industry?” He closed the show by chastising
Gore for trying to use the media to discredit skeptical scientists:
There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore——
one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White
House in this century——[is] resorting to political means to
achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific
basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics
of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist
associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of
truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that
works.

The attempt to use Mr. Koppel to tar the reputations of his
opponents brought criticism down on the vice president, and I
learned of rumors that the Clinton White House had become nervous
about the issue, and perhaps Vice President Gore himself
was becoming nervous. In any case, on April 29, 1994, Dr. Lancaster’s
attorneys indicated they were ready to have him sign a
retraction and apology.

The bottom line is we cannot power the kind of civilization we want using atmospheric reactions (i.e. combusion) without changing the atmosphere. And if you think changing the atmosphere is not dangerous, I think you should establish the first American colonies on Venus.