The fantastical falsehoods of Roger Pielke, Jr., Part 143

Posted on  

"The fantastical falsehoods of Roger Pielke, Jr., Part 143"

UPDATE:  For a compilation of debunkings of Roger Pielke, Jr. by leading scientists and science bloggers (see “Foreign Policy’s “Guide to Climate Skeptics” includes Roger Pielke, Jr.“)

Liar liarNow that they* have shut down his original blog, Roger Pielke, Jr., is desperately trying to remain relevant in the blogosphere.  Pielke’s preferred strategy — as it has always been — is to utterly misrepresent what people say and then attack that misrepresentation in the hopes of garnering media attention.  Baselessly smearing the professional reputation of hundreds of leading U.S. scientists means nothing whatsoever to him — if it gets him press coverage (see details here).

These days, the main “media” paying attention to Pielke, Jr. (as with Pielke, Sr.) are the global warming deniers (see “Uber-denier Inhofe gives big wet Valentine’s kiss to Pielke “” go figure!“).  So it’s no surprise that Pielke Jr.’s latest distortion was immediately picked up by Swift Boat smearer Marc Morano, much as the main person pushing Pielke Sr.’s climate disinformation is anti-science blogger Anthony Watts (see “Like father, like son: Roger Pielke Sr. also doesn’t understand the science of global warming “” or just chooses to willfully misrepresent it“)  What is (a little) surprising is that Pielke would utterly misrepresent something I wrote when everyone can plainly see what he is doing.

Normally I’d ignore this, but I need to set the record straight when Pielke falsely claims I called Democratic members of Congress “liars about the promise of [green] jobs” — and when Morano trumpets that lie.  I advanced the jobs message in the very post Pielke attacked and have blogged repeatedly about the millions of green jobs Democrats are in the process of creating — as Pielke knows.

Also, this post gives me a chance to praise the real leadership that Sen. John Kerry has been showing on the climate and clean energy bill — and his crucial understanding and articulation of both winning messages.

Last night I wrote a post that ended with a discussion of the need for pushing two key messages to advance legislation in the Senate — 1) the threat posed by global warming and 2) the clean energy opportunity.  I excerpted a January piece I wrote:

The Obama team needs to spend a considerable amount of time giving public speeches, holding informal meetings with key opinion makers, researching and publicizing major reports on the high cost of inaction and the relatively low cost of solutions.

Then I noted that the political operatives in the White House have been urging folks to downplay the first message (even though they don’t downplay the “high cost of inaction” message for health care).

[I should have added that President Obama himself has always spoken about the cost of inaction in his major speeches (as has Energy Secretary Chu), but the political operatives have generally succeeded in getting others to downplay the message.]

Then I noted “That means most of the messaging will be on clean energy and jobs “” which is a great message, one I’ve pushed for two decades now.”  It is a great message — one I advance in a large fraction of the posts here as regular readers know.

But it is only half the message and anyone who only pushes that half is seriously undercutting the rationale for “a 42% reduction in CO2 emissions in two decades and an 83% reduction in four decades, along with all the extensive accompanying regulations,” as I noted.  Then I wrote:

Frankly, it is an insult to the public “” and to members of Congress “” to pretend that the overwhelming reason we are doing this bill is clean energy and jobs.

I think my meaning was 99.9999% clear.  The bill will create millions of clean energy jobs, but that is only one of the two key reasons we’re doing it — and we certainly wouldn’t be doing this cap-and-trade bill if not for global warming.

But there is always that one-in-a-million serial liar.

So if you go to Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog — which I can’t recommend to any non-masochists, although it is cleverly named “Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog” — you’ll see this laughable post, “Joe Romm vs. John Kerry,” which I’ll repost in its entirety:

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) explains why passing cap-and-trade is so important:

…this bill is really a bill for the transformation of the American economy. This bill is about jobs “” clean energy jobs that stay here in America, that pay people decent salaries.

Joe Romm explains that Senator Kerry is insulting his peers and the American public with his pretend arguments:

Frankly, it is an insult to the public “” and to members of Congress “” to pretend that the overwhelming reason we are doing this bill is clean energy and jobs.

That is all the Democrats need on cap-and-trade, their loudest cheerleader calling them liars about the promise of jobs. No green jobs? Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Honestly, Roger, is that the best you can do?  Or, rather, dishonestly, Roger, is that the best you can do?  It takes a certain kind of serial liar to take what I wrote and claim it means that the green jobs message is not true, that I’m calling Democrats liars, and that I’m saying their are “no green jobs.”

Pielke, Jr. knows I wrote in that very post that the clean energy and jobs messages is a great message and that I have blogged repeatedly on the millions of clean energy jobs the climate bill and the stimulus will create.  Indeed, I just posted a link to a major resource which details the hundreds of thousands of jobs already created by clean-energy investments and the many more that will be created (see “The Hub: Resources for a Clean-Energy Economy“).

Pielke, Jr. must know this since he apparently reads my blog obsessively.  After all, I put up my post at 8:28 pm (East Coast time) and his post is dated 8:03 pm (presumably Colorado time).

[No, I don't read Pielke's blog -- someone sent me an e-mail to an idiotic Morano post and I noticed Morano's post "Joe Romm vs. John Kerry on climate bill: 'Loudest cheerleader for Dems calls them liars about the promise of jobs' " and traced it back to the uber-liar.]

Anyway, I added an explanatory note to the original post for the willfully confused:

UPDATE:   We are doing this for two inseparable reasons, as anybody who reads CP “” or even this blog post “” knows.  We are doing this to transform our economy away from a catastrophically unsustainable emissions path onto a sustainable one and to create millions of green jobs.  But in fact the two arguments are inseparable, a point I’ve made many times “” see “Climate competitiveness 2: When the global Ponzi scheme collapses (circa 2030), the only jobs left will be green.”

Let me also note that my post wasn’t even directed at John Kerry, since I know — and everyone else but Pielke knows — that he has never downplayed the climate science message.  Sure Kerry has been a leader in championing the jobs message — but even in the brief quote Pielke uses, it’s clear Kerry is talking about “the transformation of the American economy.”  Kerry has been a true leader in championing the science message.  Just last Monday, he wrote an article in the Providence Journal, “Global-warming disaster,” replying to Palin’s op-ed, that once again gives the lie to Roger Pielke, Jr.:

Yes, she manages to write about the climate-change action in Congress without ever mentioning the reason we are doing this in the first place. It’s like complaining about the cost of repairing a roof without factoring in the leaks destroying your home.

Hear!  Hear!  [I'm talking to you, political operatives in the White House, and you, Roger Pielke, Jr.]

The global climate change crisis threatens our economy and our national security in profound ways. Governor Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be. The small native village of Newtok is being literally wiped off the map because of a melting permafrost and disappearing sea ice.

Around the world, the effects are already being felt. The Himalayan glaciers, source for almost all the major rivers of India and China, are shrinking, putting the future water resources of billions of people in doubt. Shifting weather patterns may turn the American “breadbasket” into a dustbowl. And stronger storms and rising sea levels can devastate coastal communities across our country and around the world.

All of these effects (and many, many more) will have a devastating effect on our economy and threaten our national security. For example, just imagine the situation in India and Pakistan if the rivers on which the region depends for agriculture dry up. Imagine how much worse the problems of poverty, terrorism, and instability would become in that situation.

Governor Palin’s Commentary piece sounds as if the only threats America faces are solely economic. But that’s not what our intelligence experts and military leaders tell us. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a rock-jawed military man and former commander of our forces in the Middle East, who is tough to peg as any sort of climate alarmist, warned that without action “we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”

We can’t afford to ignore this reality “” in an op-ed column or in our public debate over an entire piece on legislation designed to meet these challenges. A Commentary on Guant¡namo policy that fails to acknowledge the existence of terrorists would not be taken seriously. Neither should an op-ed on energy reform that fails to mention the irrefutable reality of climate change.

Precisely.

Nobody could possibly accuse John Kerry of pitching the climate bill only as a jobs bill — even though it is a jobs bill — nobody that is except a serial liar like Roger Pielke, Jr.

Related Posts:

Tags:

« »

21 Responses to The fantastical falsehoods of Roger Pielke, Jr., Part 143

  1. Jim Beacon says:

    Pielke, Jr. and Morano must be getting desperate for new material if they think even their own followers will interpret Joe’s statement as saying anything other than what it clearly did: That it was an insult to pretend the Climate Bill is *only* about jobs. But maybe they figure their fans only read their headlines and don’t bother to read any further.

    What’s bizarre is that so many people can’t seem to understand that:

    1) If you’re worried about where new jobs will come from to replace those lost over the last couple of years, the clean energy industry is the *only* sector of the economy which grew strongly during those years, creating over 100,000 new jobs. And it continues to grow, though at a slower pace, even in this global recession. So you need the Climate Bill to support the one sector of the U.S. economy which is a true growth sector and has such huge potential for future jobs.

    2) If you’re worried about national energy security and the U.S. spending too much money to import “foreign oil” then you need the Climate Bill to push the development of home-grown energy sources of *all kinds*, which is exactly what it does.

    3) If you’re genuinely worried about the accelerated warming of our planet, you need the Climate Bill because… well, you already know why.

    4) If you’re worried that the bill doesn’t do enough, you need the Climate Bill so we can at least get started doing *something*, because if this bill can’t get passed then certainly nothing “stronger” is ever going to get passed.

    So, no matter what big issue you’re worried about, you should be in favor of quick passage of this Climate Bill.

    P.S – I agree with those who believe that the Senate delaying the vote on the Climate Bill until next year is a terribly dangerous move, one that may very well prevent it from ever being passed at all.

  2. John Hollenberg says:

    I think the deniers are getting more desperate, which leads to the lies getting bigger. This looks like a perfect example of that phenomenon.

  3. MarkB says:

    Good smackdown of Pielke Jr. It seems that when he can’t think of anything to write, he creates some idiotic strawman. He even comically clipped a couple of sentences from the middle of Kerry’s response. Just prior, Kerry states:

    “This is an issue that ought to be based on science, on facts, on economics, and on good environmental policy — good economic policy, may I add significantly. ”

    So Kerry is obviously transitioning from discussing how the bill is based on science and how important it is for the environment to discussing its economic benefits.

    From the same interview:

    “You have to take risks. The Republicans, what’s their plan? What plan do they have for anything? Do they have a plan for heath care? No. Do they want to fix the system? No. Their “no” is a vote for the status quo, and the status quo hurts Americans. What’s their energy, what’s their global climate change policy? To stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening? And risk catastrophe for our nation and the planet? I think people will recognize the importance of these issues as we go forward. Let this debate be joined. I look forward to it.”

    “I think what’s changed is that the science is coming back dramatically faster — and in greater affirmation of the predictions — than anybody had thought, and so scientists are deeply alarmed.”

    Here’s the Kerry op-ed from HuffingtonPost:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/what-gov-palin-forgot_b_231892.html

    Here’s my theory of what’s going on the in the denialsphere. Deniers are claiming that public opinion is on their side on the science, citing polls showing concern for global warming dropping (more as a result of the economic conditions than anything). They believe that if cap and trade is presented strictly as a scientific/environmental issue, they will win because they will convince the public it will destroy the economy, and the public is more concerned about the economy. So deniers are concerned of anyone presenting cap and trade as a job creator and economic stimulus, since it takes away their talking points. Deniers like Pielke Jr. would much rather have proponents of the legislation only talk about the science, so they can have the economic argument to themselves. This is motivation for the strawman Pielke Jr. is constructing.

  4. Roger Pielke, Jr. says:

    Joe-

    “Now that they’ve shut down his original blog . . .”

    Who shut down my blog?

    [JR: Some very wise people shut down Prometheus.]

    Both Kerry and pelosi have said, in effect, that jobs are an “overwhelming reason” for this bill. Do you dispute that?

    [JR: You ARE persistent in your desire to misrepresent my arguments and present nonsensical ones of your own -- but I just don't think I could possibly have been clearer in what I wrote.

    YOU are the one who chose John Kerry as your example, and what Kerry himself wrote in the op-ed I quoted gives the utter lie to your standard effort to claim you never said what you did in fact say. Could Kerry possibly be clearer: "Yes, she manages to write about the climate-change action in Congress without ever mentioning the reason we are doing this in the first place. It’s like complaining about the cost of repairing a roof without factoring in the leaks destroying your home.... We can’t afford to ignore this reality — in an op-ed column or in our public debate over an entire piece on legislation designed to meet these challenges. A Commentary on Guantánamo policy that fails to acknowledge the existence of terrorists would not be taken seriously. Neither should an op-ed on energy reform that fails to mention the irrefutable reality of climate change."

    Yes, it is still a jobs bill -- and let's not forget that much of the bill is written specifically toaccelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and generate millions of jobs. But it is the threat of catastrophic climate change that is "the reason we are doing this in the first place." Roger, is it so difficult to just admit you were wrong?]

  5. Roger Pielke, Jr. says:

    Joe-

    Wow, thanks for letting my comment through.

    [JR: Why not? You just make my case for me....]

    To set the record straight, the decision to terminate Prometheus was mine and mine alone. My university has been nothing but supportive of my blogging and even offered to put whatever resources were necessary to keep it going. So your intimations are unfounded, unless of course you are calling me wise.

    [JR: Ahh, well, not quite what I heard, but you are entitled to your spin. So it was you who shut down a popular blog so you could start a much more obscure one. Another commenter hear offers a plausible explanation for that ... unusual behavior.]

    Second, I know how much you like to parse semantics, but I am afraid that such debates are unproductive. Are you saying that anyone whose support for the bill is based on jobs is “pretending”?

    [JR: Zzzzz. It is you who like to parse semantics. I wrote a blog post that was clear to 99.9999% of readers. You twisted in insanely -- not just willfully misinterpreting it but making the doubly absurd statement that somehow I don't believe the bill is a big clean energy jobs creator. I then explained myself again, this time with a quote from Sen. Kerry that makes clear just how wrong you were to cite him. And you are still parsing semantics. You only need to do that when someone has NOT explained themselves clearly at length, as I have done twice. Well, maybe you need to do it all the time just to be perverse. And the answer to your question above is "no" -- since my post is NOT above why someone supports the bill. Try reading it!]

    I hear you say that you think there are two reasons for the bill. I read Kerry as saying that there are also two reasons, but that jobs are an “overwhelming reason” to support the bill. Now we could debate what it means to say “overwhelming reason” but clearly, Kerry and a lot of Democrats support the bill for jobs, and for many it is first and foremost. I think the evidence on this is pretty clear. Maybe you disagree.

    [JR: John Kerry disagrees with you. Now you are willfully misrepresenting both of us. Could Kerry have been clearer about "the reason we are doing this in the first place"? No. Again, your statement above has nothing to do with my post. Get a life, Roger, seriously!]

  6. Lou Grinzo says:

    I think the number one reason why the deniers will be getting ever louder and more desperate in the next few years is simple, and it’s right on this site: The article about the NASA GISS study saying we’re in for some mighty warm years.

    This is horrible news for the deniers, as nothing will convince the mainstream voters that “global warming is a real and serious problem” than several record highs in a row. This would convince even more people than would a hurricane all but obliterating a US city, or a heat wave in Europe killing twelve times as many people as died in the 9/11 attacks. Memories are very short; ask the average US voter what year New Orleans was devastated by Katrina, and I bet that no more than 50% of people who live more than 500 miles away from New Orleans will get it right. And ask them about that heat wave in Europe that killed over 37,000 people (says Wikipedia) in the summer of 2003, and they’ll stare at you like you just got off the noon bus from Neptune.

  7. Steve Bloom says:

    Joe, just to note that I think the end of Prometheus was semi-voluntary. Although RP Jr. started Prometheus, it was a group blog for his institute and so open to any of his colleagues. As of this summer, one of those colleagues is Max Boykoff, who you will be aware is no fan of RP Jr.’s views and is not shy about saying so. Lacking any grounds for barring Max from Prometheus, shutting it down must have seemed like a far better option.

  8. Michael says:

    Mate, you really need to relax a bit. You really seem to get a bit worked up with all those inter-blog wars of words. Can’t be good for your blood pressure.

    [JR: Quite the reverse. It is GREAT for my blood pressure!]

  9. Michael says:

    Jim
    “3) If you’re genuinely worried about the accelerated warming of our planet, you need the Climate Bill because… well, you already know why.”

    What if one is worried (and I’m not) but thinks it’s impossible to do anything about it?

    Most proponents of the AGW theory link global warming/climate change ONLY to carbon dioxide emissions. I find it incredibly simplistic to suggest a complex system like our world climate would be influenced to such an enormous degree (hehe) by just one single variable.

    [JR: Mate, you really need to learn science. Your denial can't be good for the health of our children, grandchildren, and billions of people around the globe.]

  10. Florifulgurator says:

    Michael, Joe sure is able to be tough and relaxed at the same time. Otherwise he would be long dead. Who deserves blood pressure problems are the liars and bullshitters. Time to make them scream till they burst.

  11. DavidCOG says:

    Very disappointingly the E360 blog has given Junior a platform for his “do nothing at all costs” agenda: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2175

    I left a comment, but it’s pre-moderated. Just in case they decide not to let it through, here it is for posterity:

    ~~~
    I didn’t read this article. Didn’t need to – I’ve read enough of Pielke Junior to know his agenda – do nothing at all costs. Do nothing that would impact his lifestyle or ‘The American Way’ (aka ‘Consume As Much As You Can Guilt-Free’.

    Shame on E360 for giving him a platform. I could go to any denier blog for this type of rhetoric.

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/28/the-lies-of-roger-pielke-jr/
    ~~~

    [JR: Great point. I'll post on this. They are giving deniers and delayers a platform.]

  12. DavidCOG says:

    Still stifling comments with pre-moderation for more than one URL, Joe? You’ve studiously ignored my nagging on this. I appreciate it’s your house, but – what’s the point? You’re going to spend more time allowing genuine comments through than deleting spam.

    Again, it stifles the conversation and makes me (at least) unenthusiastic to comment because the conversation may have moved on and finished by the time my comment gets through.

    I’ll shut up after this and accept this isn’t a blog that suits my comment style if you’re going to maintain this moderation policy.

    All the best.

    ~~~
    Adding URLs so that this comment goes to moderation first in case you want to delete it:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/28/the-lies-of-roger-pielke-jr/
    http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2175
    http://www.350.org/understanding-350

    [JR: Just for you, I've changed the settings so commenters can have 2 links. I'll see how that works out. Might boost it, but I can't really see the need for more than 2 in 99% of comments.]

  13. Pete O'Connor says:

    John Kerry has his flaws as a salesman, but I agree he’s pretty clear here. Yes, the climate bill will create jobs. So would going to Mars. So would invading another Middle Eastern country. If Kerry thinks the bill is about jobs first and foremost, why is he so insistent that they be clean energy jobs?

    The reason we’re looking to create *these particular jobs* in *this particular field* is because of climate change. Is that so hard to understand?

  14. e says:

    Shoot, with the benefit of DavidCOG’s comment I am now unsure whether I screwed up and lost my comment or if it’s off in the misty realm of moderation. Please forgive this obvious test.

  15. TokyoTom says:

    “Now that they’ve shut down his original blog,”

    Joe, is this something you know without a doubt and can offer either facts or your word as bond on? Or was it just a guess that you don`t mind offering with any support?

    Just curious.

    [JR: It was a snarky comment designed to get a rise out of someone who had viciously misrepresented what I had written in order to smear me -- a smear that deniers like Morano reposted. Are you defending what Pielke did? Just curious. More thoughts in response to the next comment.]

  16. Franklin Barrett says:

    Joe, I second the question — are you making pure speculations or do you have some shred of evidence to support your assertion that Pielke, Jr’s blog was anything but willfully moved?

    [JR: First, are you folks here defending Pielke's willful misinterpretation and smear of what I wrote? Because if you are, well, you've kind of lost the moral high ground to criticize my response.

    Second, in case you hadn't noticted, I let Pielke publish his explanation and wrote "Ahh, well, not quite what I heard, but you are entitled to your spin. So it was you who shut down a popular blog so you could start a much more obscure one. Another commenter hear offers a plausible explanation for that ... unusual behavior."

    Third, yes, I have received a number of emails from first hand sources (on background) with variations of what Steve Bloom posted here that I referenced in the previous sentence. Yes, I'm happy to if acknowledge that it seems to have been "semi voluntary" -- but like I said, who really voluntarily shuts down a very popular blog to launch an obscure one?

    When Pielke apologizes for his gross misrepresentation and smear of what I wrote, then I'll be happy to say Pielke's "explanation" of what happened to Prometheus is what everybody should believe.]

  17. Franklin Barrett says:

    OK! Thanks, Joe. I am eager for the facts.

    So you say you “have received a number of emails from first hand sources (on background)”.. wouldn’t that sort of evidence be worth citing up-front?

    And can you clarify how Pielke, Jr apologizing for his post would compel you to … change your mind about the facts?

  18. TokyoTom says:

    JR: “Are you defending what Pielke did? Just curious.”

    No, Joe; I`m not defending Roger. (If you look at his blog thread you`ll see that I offered the opinion that he should not have skated so close to putting words in your mouth.) But of what relevance is MY motive, anyway, to the question of whether you are publishing facts, or simply rumors?

    I sure hope youre not trying to be the National Enquirer.

    [JR: Honestly, you folks have no sense of humor. It isn't your MOTIVE -- it is whether you have a double standard and are thus a hypocrite. Roger prints the most outrageous misrepresentations and falsehoods, so for you to come here and complain about a mild snarky remark -- he libeled me viciously, I needled him a little -- and not even slightly criticize his remarks tells the whole story about YOU. What people who post here don't realize is that while everybody knows exactly who I am and where I stand, with my bio available for all to see along with more than 1 million words words on CP alone covering every topic -- I and my other readers have no friggin' clue who you (and other people who come her to criticize me) are. Unless you clearly state your views, you could just be another denier/troll in sheep's clothing -- lots of people come here pretending to be reasonable in order to trash climate science or scientists or this blog. Your last sentence is very self-revealing in that regard.]

  19. Franklin Barrett says:

    Joe,

    I just want to hear what really happened with Pielke, Jr blog.

    That doesn’t make me a “denier”, does it??

    I ask because you seem to infer that I am indeed a “denier” with the following comment to TokyoTom: “lots of people come here pretending to be reasonable in order to trash climate science or scientists or this blog”.

    [JR: I don't "infer" it, nor did I "imply" it -- I merely stated a fact. There is no possible way for me to know where you are coming from, especially since you refuse to tell me. How funny that you would leap to such a conclusion based on the most tenuous inference, and yet let Pielke's blatant slanders go uncriticized here.]

    Thanks!

    Let me add that I do appreciate your effort to reveal your assertion as really just a “snarky comment designed to get a rise out of someone…”

    [JR: I actually thought it was obvious why my comment was designed to do. In any case, since you are fond of inference, my guess is you can infer what happened to Pielke's blog from the fact that it was incredibly popular and apparently circumstances led him to kill it and replace it with an obscure blog.]

  20. TokyoTom says:

    Joe, I`m afraid it`s a bit of a puzzle to me to figure out how to respond, since you obviously didn`t trouble yourself to follow my reference to Roger`s comment thread, where I stated “it seems that Romm has a legitimate complaint” and “Consequently your statement that `Romm explains that Senator Kerry is insulting his peers` is both inaccurate as a matter of fact and a rhetorical stretch too far.”

    So I have in fact criticized Roger, while I`ve only posed questions to you (the answers to which you seem to insist depend not on the facts, but on my state of mind). If that means I “have a double standard and are thus a hypocrite”, so be it.

    FWIW, I`ve been trying to insist on clear-headed thinking on climate change and policy for a few years now, with others on the right tending to be my targets. As my blog is hosted by the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute, you might guess I`m used to taking heat.

    [JR: Let's be clear. You come here after Pielke has fabricated a ridiculous smear about me and post a comment that makes it very much look like you are taking his side, and then your subsequent defense is that I didn't do what you said and actually go to his smear-filled blog. Well, now I did. And it was as painful as I thought it would be. Wow, Pielke just repeats falsehood after falsehood and misrepresentation after misrepresentation in the comment thread. Yes, you sort of defend me. Thanks. That said, your comments above keep misrepresenting what I have clearly written. The answers don't depend on your state of mind -- but whether you are the kind of person who is worth my wasting/spending time responding to, does. The fact that you apparently regularly reading Robert Bradley's blog suggests to me that you are in fact a pretty hard-core libertarian -- although I suppose you could be a hard-core masochist. Perhaps both :) You are generally welcome to comment here, but in the future, I'd suggest that you start by laying out where you are coming from, if you don't want to be misunderstood.]

  21. kapadokya says:

    I think the number one reason why the deniers will be getting ever louder and more desperate in the next few years is simple, and it’s right on this site: The article about the NASA GISS study saying we’re in for some mighty warm years.

    This is horrible news for the deniers, as nothing will convince the mainstream voters that “global warming is a real and serious problem” than several record highs in a row. This would convince even more people than would a hurricane all but obliterating a US city, or a heat wave in Europe killing twelve times as many people as died in the 9/11 attacks. Memories are very short; ask the average US voter what year New Orleans was devastated by Katrina, and I bet that no more than 50% of people who live more than 500 miles away from New Orleans will get it right. And ask them about that heat wave in Europe that killed over 37,000 people (says Wikipedia) in the summer of 2003, and they’ll stare at you like you just got off the noon bus from Neptune.