Via Judith Curry, I see there is an announcement for a new round of Capitol Hill-sponsored theatrics. The scheduled hearing is titled: Climate Change: Examining the processes used to create science and policy That’s going to be quite a show, given the deliberate bundling of science and policy. Roger Pielke Jr. should be able to…Continue Reading…
Whether you believe the term”climate denier” is used accurately or unfairly in the climate debate, I’d be curious to hear what you think of this headline atop Andrew Bolt’s latest column: Six million Jews didn’t die so Combet could smear a sceptic
A new study provides an interesting public opinion comparison between Canada and the U.S. Of the 11-page report, Tim Scolnick at Desmogblog says perhaps the most surprising feature is that in Canada, in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party has held power for just over five years, all the while opposing any action to cap…Continue Reading…
The normally level-headed Kevin Drum, who says “we now officially live in the era of guerrilla activism,” spots a trend. It started in the fall of 2009 with the infamous ACORN sting. Conservative activist James O’Keefe secretly recorded ACORN employees providing advice to a faux pimp who wanted to bring underage prostitutes into the country…Continue Reading…
John Broder, in his next day story, tries to [you choose] 1) atone, 2) appease, 3) fill in the blank. “We’ll never know what this president could have achieved,” said Joseph J. Romm, a former Department of Energy official who is one of the country’s most influential writers on climate change, “because he didn’t try.”
Climate blogger Joe Romm has published one of his worst misleading opening sentences: The New York Times has published one of its worst climate science pieces. Yes, I’m being playful, but also dead serious. Romm’s latest post knocking The New York Times coverage of global warming is about this John Broder article–which itself was about a…Continue Reading…
The latest Congressional climate science hearing should be fun. Well, not as much fun as this. Tom Yulsman has a perspective well worth reading. In keeping with the spirit of my own superficial gloss (Have you noticed yet that I’m a Dennis Potter fan?), I’ll just add this.
In the New York Times magazine, Judith Warner assesses the collective GOP stance on global warming and speculates: Whoever emerges as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 will very likely have to embrace climate-change denial. I think she’s right, which means an issue that normally doesn’t factor into national elections may well have a high…Continue Reading…
A Republican over at Frum’s site has some advice for the GOP that will undoubtedly be ignored: if Republicans in Congress want to build on their 2010 gains, going on the warpath against environmental protections might be a flawed strategy. Recent polling and focus group work indicates that roughly three-fourths of Americans ““ including 61…Continue Reading…
A few days ago, House Republicans held their first hearing on climate science. Actually, as John Broder reported in the NYT, the ostensible purpose of the hearing was to review the economic impact of pending limits on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. But much of the discussion focused instead on whether climate science supports…Continue Reading…