No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

You may have seen the letter in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, written (purportedly) by sixteen “scientists” who somehow think the Global Warming consensus is something they can dispute.

Which, of course, they can.

In response, I’m forced to wonder: has anybody ever written an anti-fisking? If not, then witness this TrogloPundit first. The letter begins:


Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Well, that depends on your definition of “oft-repeated.” And “nearly.” And “demand.” And “dramatic.” And “true.”


Oh, they’re distinguished all right. And soon they’ll be “distinguished” by their ostracism.

“In the (American Physical Society) APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

What is this guy, some kind of mono-universal zealot?


…mainly waged by Ted Danson…


Oh. Facts, huh? You say you’ve got facts. Well, fine, let’s hear some of these supposed “facts.”


Ah. Well. Um…


…we know! Humans cause global warming!


Hey pal, I’m an environmentalist. I hate plants.


No, that can’t possibly be true. The megastorms would have killed everything off. Didn’t you see “The Day After Tomorrow?” That gave me chills.


Ah-hah! So you admit the CO2 is changing things!


…well, they’re still young…

…they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted–or worse. They have good reason to worry.

Damn tootin’.


Because he’s a heretic, duh.




Because they’d already had stationery printed?


Money? There’s money? You didn’t say anything about…oh, um…heh. Joking. It’s all about the scientific consensus.

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many…

…what’ve you got against the alarm industry?

…providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

Like plants in a high CO2 environment. Ha.


Hey. Money’s green. Green, get it? As in environmental? Do the math, if you can.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently…

Ugh. I hate that more than plants.


“Not justified economically?” Didn’t you just say there was lots of money in global warming alarmism? Isn’t that economic justification?

You’re contradicting yourself there, Poindexter.


Well, the longer we go without controls, the longer our political allies can make an issue of it…yeah, I guess that would work out okay.


Dude, shut up. We’re not forcing the controls on the poor countries. Just the United…uh, I mean, just the developed… uh… the high-polluting parts of the world.

Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment.

Ah, “investment.” How much did the Koch brothers pay you to slip that little word in there?


Ah hah! So you admit it may be a good thing!

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data.

Hey! You’re trying to horn in on our money!


Exactly. Sheesh, don’t you want to stop it from complicating human life? And we can only do that by taking control of “ever-changing nature.” Mankind has to control nature, that’s the whole point of the environmental movement!


Mmmm, no, we don’t like those words. “Critical review.” Not like.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment…

Oh, so you arrogant humans think you can control nature now, do you?


Well, thanks. There go our luxurious vacation homes.

(Posted by The TrogloPundit)

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!