It’s a
rare occasion when you find a global warming alarmist willing
to debate a skeptic in public, as happened last month in North
Carolina when atmospheric scientist John Christy went up against
William
Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute of
Ecosystem Studies. It’s probably because alarmists don’t like
when their
clocks get
cleaned.
So what do the skeptics do when their cowardly opponents run away? They
throw a party for themselves!
That’s what happened this week in New York, when the Heartland Institute hosted its
second International
Conference on Climate Change. As opposed to staging a sad
affair in which an imaginary consensus of scientists discharge
doom-and-gloom scenarios due to excessive engine combustions and
mammalian exhalations, my fellow challengers to anthropogenic
global warming theory conducted an uplifting, thought-stirring
summit. The goal: good science, and how to stop the alarmists
from driving energy prices and business regulations upward in the
name of averting a contrived climate emergency.
But if there’s one flaw with these lovable libertarians, it’s
that they still crave attention from those who practice
journalism-formerly-known-as-mainstream. Instead of contentedness
with
blogs and
bursts of information rifling
around the ‘Net, they pine for the
sunshine of a friendly gaze from reporters
on life support. It’s like Derek Smalls
eyeing Pamela Des
Barres for a little intimacy after the show, but he gets
dissed because she’s transfixed by
Jim Morrison.
Similarly the bass-playing Heartlanders got the enviro-groupie
treatment
from the New York Times’
Andrew Revkin, who favors the established rock stars of
environmentalism. The author of
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast (or “I’m
with Al Gore’s Band”) and
The North Pole Was Here (or “Let’s
Spend the Night Together, Jim Hansen”) previewed the event —
held in Manhattan — only because he couldn’t ignore the
up-and-comers in his own backyard.
Not surprisingly he dashed their hopes of
groovin’ around and around, and instead applied the usual
Society of Environmental Journalists’ marginalization
template:
More than 600 self-professed climate skeptics are meeting in a
Times Square hotel this week to challenge what has become a
broad scientific and political consensus: that without big
changes in energy choices, humans will dangerously heat up the
planet.
As is common with sycophants who ingratiate themselves to the
objects of their literary affection, Revkin defended their honor
by ignoring two options that Encarta, for one, offers as the
definition of “consensus:”
con·sen·sus
1. general or widespread agreement among all the members
of a group
2. a concept of society in which the absence of conflict
is seen as the equilibrium state of society
Neither entry would appropriately apply to Revkin’s alleged
scientific or political consensus. He cannot, without
contortioned countenance, credibly claim there is widespread
agreement – either scientific or political. Nor can he assert
there’s an absence of conflict over the issue, unless he only
spends time in his SEJ/big
government science echo chamber. Given that Revkin fits so
snugly in the Times’ journalistic lineup, where the
themes of his books are a boon to his bio, it does not surprise
that all he emphasizes are the enviro-reverbs.
It’s not like he’s unaware of the non-consensus evidence; he just
suppresses or ignores it. While Sen. James Inhofe’s
list of 650 dissenting scientists and the Oregon Petition Project’s
less rigorous, but still significant, 31,000 names hang in the
room like bong smoke, Revkin
tries to overcome the aroma with IPCC incense:
But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of
the recent warming was a result of human influences, global
warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and
weakening support.
What a shock: Pro-big government media promotes big
multi-government (that wants big one-world government)
organizational effort to advocate for big government-sponsored
computer modeling masked as big government pseudo-science. With
all these heavy hands, it’s a marvel that the IPCC could only
muster 52 scientists to contribute to their alarmist Summary
for Policymakers.
Then there’s public opinion. In a January poll Rasmussen found
that
more respondents believed that global warming was due to
planetary trends rather than human causes. And in another
Rasmussen survey last month, 54 percent of respondents
said the news media exaggerates threats to the planet from
global warming. Pew also found in January that of 20 policy
issues it asked people to rank in importance, global
warming fell last. In addition,
a poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research last
summer found an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to
spend any more on gasoline or electricity to address global
warming, as is proposed under the Lieberman/Warner bill.
And finally, this week Gallup found
a record-high 41 percent believe the media exaggerates the threat
of global warming. “This represents the highest level of public
skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in
more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject,” the polling
firm reported.
The Amazing Revkin
noted the Gallup findings on his blog with a inquisitive
“what’s going on” tone, inviting readers to fill up his comments
section. Many fellow eco-toadies responded. Meanwhile the New
York Times is selling both its
building and its
corporate jet, thanks to circulation and revenue declines. Go
figure.
