Pajamas Media Post: ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’ Fails Logic 101

Knowing what I know, which is not much, the climate change can go either direction in the future. In my opinion, overzealous alarmists and denialists will be taking turns basking in their superficial victory. Fortunately, in the mean time, many scientists will still be diligently engaging in their research regardless of all the noises caused by extremists. Hopefully, step by step, the secret will be unlocked.

OK, I can take the hint. Well done, sir.

I’ve just re-read Michael Crichton’s AGW-questioning novel, State of Fear. It contains an extensive bibliography “to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions.”

Regarding the 1972 Lowell Ponte book, The Cooling, Crichton says:

“The most highly praised of the books from the 1970s that warned of an impending ice age. (The cover asks: ‘Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it?) Contains a chapter on how we might modify the global climate to prevent excessive cooling. A typical quote: ‘We cannot simply afford to gamble against this possibility by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are entering a period of climatic instability [i.e., unpredictability] are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored’ (p. 237).”

Isn’t the similarity to contemporary AGW rhetoric interesting?
-can’t afford to gamble
-can’t afford to ignore
-can’t risk inaction
-scientists who think differently are irresponsible
-indicators are too strong to ignore

We HAVE heard this all before. And as your piece points out so fabulously, it tells us far more about the excitability of the authors than it does about the validity of their views.

How to shut off the extremists? I have no idea, Brother Briggs. Is it possible though?

One way is to stick your fingers in your ears. If no one is listening, they might be more inclined to go away. Let me be clear that I am not saying there are no valid points embedded in the extremists’ opinions. I’d ask instead how they can be properly channeled.

I have wondered how the political climate would have been if D. Cheney were the one who promoted global warming? Ah, a useless exercise this is.

The lawsuit you never heard of before:

“In this case, the scientist fought back and won an unconditional surrender that revealed the complete corruption of Gore and at least one prominent Harvard climate researcher.”

http://robkremer.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-media-cover-up.html
.