Comments on: A Suggested Correction For Will’s ‘Dark Green Doomsayers’ Column http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:01:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Walter Long http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-116026 Walter Long Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:27:12 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-116026 go george.....too bad your article was a few days early......maybe these delusionals can explain 193,000sq.miles of arctic ice they failed to account for.....pursuit of knowledge not politics......prove your claims!!!!!!!! go george…..too bad your article was a few days early……maybe these delusionals can explain 193,000sq.miles of arctic ice they failed to account for…..pursuit of knowledge not politics……prove your claims!!!!!!!!

]]> By: abc http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-115742 abc Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:58:22 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-115742 Those that speak do not know, while those that know do not speak. It is the persistent problem of formulating good science policy in a democracy. Shame on George Will for hurting our country! Those that speak do not know, while those that know do not speak. It is the persistent problem of formulating good science policy in a democracy. Shame on George Will for hurting our country!

]]> By: mommycalled http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-115694 mommycalled Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:50:32 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-115694 Exactly what reality and truth are your talking about Zog? I guess you are having trouble understanding the doucmentation above where George Will misquotes, lies and otherwise makes a fool of himself. The squeals you hear are the squeals of deniers as their ox get <strong>GORE</strong>d Exactly what reality and truth are your talking about Zog? I guess you are having trouble understanding the doucmentation above where George Will misquotes, lies and otherwise makes a fool of himself. The squeals you hear are the squeals of deniers as their ox get GOREd

]]> By: Zog http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-113429 Zog Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:47:40 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-113429 Ah, there's nothing more pleasing to my ear than the frustrated squeals of warmists forced to confront reality and truth. How about a Nobel Peace Prize for George Will? Go get 'em George. Ah, there’s nothing more pleasing to my ear than the frustrated squeals of warmists forced to confront reality and truth. How about a Nobel Peace Prize for George Will? Go get ‘em George.

]]> By: Val http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-107682 Val Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:54:03 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-107682 <blockquote>if the scientific consensus is right and we take precautionary action we avert a world-wide disaster, while if the consensus is wrong and we take precautionary action, we end up with a cleaner, healthier environment.</blockquote> You make it sound like "precautionary action" has no adverse consequences, yet it does, both to the environment (goodbye rainforests, we need ethanol) and the human population of today (food shortages/rising costs also due to the ethanol farce, cap & trade/carbon tax scams where the elite trade the right to live more luxuriously by decreasing the standard of living for the poor and the middle class, the current disaster in Chad because of charcoal being banned, skyrocketing energy costs, and who knows what forms of misery they will force upon us next in the name of saving the planet in some distant potential future). I'm not saying there are no policies which could indeed have benefits either way, but obviously the ones which are most likely to be adopted are those which are most attractive to the affluent, regardless of the impact on "the little people," so I do not believe this is such a win-win situation at all for the majority of people.

if the scientific consensus is right and we take precautionary action we avert a world-wide disaster, while if the consensus is wrong and we take precautionary action, we end up with a cleaner, healthier environment.

You make it sound like “precautionary action” has no adverse consequences, yet it does, both to the environment (goodbye rainforests, we need ethanol) and the human population of today (food shortages/rising costs also due to the ethanol farce, cap & trade/carbon tax scams where the elite trade the right to live more luxuriously by decreasing the standard of living for the poor and the middle class, the current disaster in Chad because of charcoal being banned, skyrocketing energy costs, and who knows what forms of misery they will force upon us next in the name of saving the planet in some distant potential future).
I’m not saying there are no policies which could indeed have benefits either way, but obviously the ones which are most likely to be adopted are those which are most attractive to the affluent, regardless of the impact on “the little people,” so I do not believe this is such a win-win situation at all for the majority of people.

]]> By: Bill http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-102932 Bill Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:47:37 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-102932 The George Will piece was unsupportable at many levels. For example, even if he had not misrepresented the 1970s hypotheses of some climate scientists, (a) they were different scientists, (b) today's scientists have much more extensive data and an explanatory mechanism that is consistent both with the data and the underlying physics, (c) there is a consensus among the world's scientists about global warming, (d) he ignores other harms produced by emissions (e.g., acidification of the oceans, growing dead zones, etc.), (e) he fails to consider risks: if the scientific consensus is right and we take precautionary action we avert a world-wide disaster, while if the consensus is wrong and we take precautionary action, we end up with a cleaner, healthier environment. Even on its own terms, Will's reasoning is absurd: scientists in the past had a different view, therefore scientists today are wrong or, alternatively, scientists of the past erred, therefore scientists today are in error. Sorry, that's not the way learning works. It's a shame, Will is more committed to battling government action than to protecting the world from unpriced externalities of the world's industries. The George Will piece was unsupportable at many levels. For example, even if he had not misrepresented the 1970s hypotheses of some climate scientists, (a) they were different scientists, (b) today’s scientists have much more extensive data and an explanatory mechanism that is consistent both with the data and the underlying physics, (c) there is a consensus among the world’s scientists about global warming, (d) he ignores other harms produced by emissions (e.g., acidification of the oceans, growing dead zones, etc.), (e) he fails to consider risks: if the scientific consensus is right and we take precautionary action we avert a world-wide disaster, while if the consensus is wrong and we take precautionary action, we end up with a cleaner, healthier environment. Even on its own terms, Will’s reasoning is absurd: scientists in the past had a different view, therefore scientists today are wrong or, alternatively, scientists of the past erred, therefore scientists today are in error. Sorry, that’s not the way learning works. It’s a shame, Will is more committed to battling government action than to protecting the world from unpriced externalities of the world’s industries.

]]> By: Gail http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/comment-page-1/#comment-102604 Gail Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:39:29 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/22/wp-will-response/#comment-102604 Whether Chu meant a near term or distant threat, it seems like near term is more like it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/22mendota.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper Whether Chu meant a near term or distant threat, it seems like near term is more like it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/22mendota.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

]]>