How Bias Heats Up the Warming Debate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444405804577558973445002552.html
Yes, it is the WSJ and yes it can be easily interpreted as ‘anti-global warming’, but I think the article has a great deal to offer. As I have lamented many times before (there is a bit of noise in this search), there is no room in this debate to question the costs of the drastic measures proposed by the ‘warmists’. Even if we accept that humans are exclusively responsible for warming (something I have substantial doubts about, though I quite firmly believe humans are _impacting_ our environment in a negative fashion) AND we accept that the exclusive reason is due to burning fossil fuels, thus increasing CO2 (I find much better explanation for the increase in CO2 in the conversion of wild land to cultivation), we are still left (or should be left with) a substantial debate on what it the best course of action. I do not think that causing our global economy to crash back to the stone age is an appropriate course of action (even if that is inevitable in the long-run, see the many posts at Do The Math (but brace yourself, it is not for the faint of heart!)). However, we can’t have any of these discussions because as soon as you suggest anything _besides_ total elimination of the use of fossil fuels you are labeled a ‘denialist’ and all rational discussion ceases. This article speaks eloquently to that point; however I am quite sure, particularly since it is on the WSJ, that it will be ignored when it isn’t denigrated.
