unbelievably great editorial on politicians and global warming

Thoughts on stupid things politicians say about climate change

The video will make you laugh, cry, or both. Rohrabacher digs out the "ice cap changes on Mars" argument. And the sad fact is, he's SERIOUS. Behind his affable demeanor, Alley must be thinking to himself, how does such a buffoonish dunderhead actually have the capability of chewing and swallowing in the right sequence?

Excerpts from the editorial:

"There is a principle in science called "Occam's Razor." I'll spare you the details on how it got its name, but it means that the simplest explanation for a problem is often the right explanation. Therefore, all scientists, when undertaking a problem, look at the simplest solution first.

That means, in the case of global warming, one would look at natural cycles. So, that's what Dr. Alley and hundreds of other scientists did. No natural cycle can explain what's happening to our climate today. Not the sun. Not volcanoes. Not the eccentricities of Earth's orbit.

In effect, Rohrabacher was asking the homicide detective whether he ever considered the killer might have been the victim's spouse. The detective would have said, "Yes we did, and the spouse was in another country." What the detective was thinking was: "Look you numbskull, the spouse is the first person we always look at!"

followed soon after by

"A Minnesota state senator told me that he would give global warming serious attention when the science gets to 50-50. Several separate studies now show more than 97 percent of all published scientists working on global warming agree that increased CO2 from fossil fuels is the primary cause. I told him that the U.S. Department of Defense believes the science, the CIA believes it, and both are already gaming the next set of world conflicts based on the effects of global warming.

I asked the senator if 100 mechanics inspected the airplane he and his family intended to fly to New York and 97 of them said the plane would crash, would he put his family on the plane? His answer was silence. Last check, he still thinks global warming is a farce. Ready for takeoff."

This is FABULOUS opinionating. Thinking that my opinion must be unanimous, I then proceeded to check the comments.

Ugh.

2nd commenter brings up the "70's Ice Age scare" and accuses scientists of manufacturing global warming data in quest of research funds.

But it gets BETTER.

Because commenter 5 brings up the 0.3 millimeter Glacial Isostatic Adjustment that James Taylor called "fictitious" in his Op-Ed in Forbes, where I have commented extensively, and have shown that for a true picture of sea level rise, the GIA is entirely and referentially justified by science. But this demonstrates the echo chamber of the skeptics, and the ability of them to drag out the most recent "damning" impugnment of climate change science. I'm sure commenter 5 hasn't bother to read the arguments I made at Forbes.com -- he probably read about it elsewhere, anyway.

Commenter #15 invokes Paul Ehrlich, ignoring the level at which the oceans, a major source of protein for much of the world's growing populace, are currently overfished. Next.

In 17, the same commenter as 5, comments on snow melt. He ought to look northward to Lake Superior, warming due to the persistent reduction in ice cover, winter after winter after winter.

Commenter 23 brings out the "Climate scientists don't include water vapor" ridiculousness, which also came up on the Forbes.com thread.

And commenter 28 notes that CO2 is a trace gas. Well, really.

Sadly predictable, but the quality of denier smackdowns in this comment thread is actually pretty darn good.