5 ms·

Cato is a (classic) liberal or libertarian think tank, not a conservative think tank. Furthermore, arguments against global warming are normally 1) there is a

Cato is a (classic) liberal or libertarian think tank, not a conservative think tank. Furthermore, arguments against global warming are normally 1) there is a warming trend, but we cannot assert it is anthropomorphic, 2) there is evidence of a warming trend, but due to poorly chosen temperature locations (e.g. cities), it may be overstated, or 3) there is no evidence of CO2 related global warming. Saying glaciers are receding does not refute any of these hypotheses. I agree with randallsquared: people who do not buy global warming hook-line-and-sinker are likened to holocaust deniers. Bias notice: I fall into an odd category on the debate. I don't know whether global warming is anthropomorphic, and I don't really care. I believe there are benefits to "clean"(er) energy sources that will lead them to dominate, regardless of environmental views or policy.

brazzy 17y ago
Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" - which is what this article is intended to make people believe (successfully so, look at ars' comment). It states no hypothesis of its own, questions the veracity of one set of data, asserts that this data is the only basis for global warming and concludes that all policy concerning global warming is therefore flawed. All in all, a very nice piece of classic FUD.
- nkurz 17y ago
  Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" This statement isn't as obvious at you make it seem. A large part of the controversy is what constitutes Global Warming, as opposed to regional. Oddly, by making the statement that receding glaciers are incontrovertible evidence of global warming, you are challenging the current consensus. Much of the question about Climate Change is whether the current climate change is 'unprecedented', and therefore more likely to be correlated with human activity. The current consensus says that the Medieval Warming Period, a period where all parties agree that there was glacial retreat, was only a regional event. Differentiating global warming from regional warming is very difficult, and is focus of this piece. Anecdotal evidence about retreating glaciers doesn't help to clear it up --- what's needed are global datasets as referred to in the article. I believe this is actually why McIntyre started researching the datasets in the first place: he was wondering why the graphs of global warming had 'erased' the MWP. (And while the piece is certainly biased, I wouldn't call it FUD. Etymologically, this makes no sense. If anything, rather than spreading Fear, it's encouraging complacency in the face of what might be a true catastrophe. CUD maybe?)
cturner 17y ago
I believe there are benefits to "clean"(er) energy sources that will lead them to dominate, regardless of environmental views or policy. Ha! It's important that big decisions are made on the basis of cost-benefit comparisons that use reason and real data. First-world foreign policy is directed towards pushing all of the world towards carbon reduction. This includes nations who have very poor people where cost of energy differences at the margins affect your ability to keep your family warm and fed. Carbon reduction puts barriers in front of the people of all nations, and should be justified by real reasons and not thumb in the air judgements.
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  You misunderstand -- or i did not make clear -- what I meant. I believe for economic reasons, "clean" sources of energy will dominate less "clean" sources of energy -without- policy intervention. I am saying that I believe technologically we are approaching economically viable cleaner sources. I am against carbon taxes, trading, etc, partially for the reason you mentioned but mostly because I think they are unnecessary.
  - cturner 17y ago
    apologies
    - chasingsparks 17y ago
      This may be the only board on the internet where a person would ever state apologies. Long live HN.

brazzy 17y ago

Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" - which is what this article is intended to make people believe (successfully so, look at ars' comment). It states no hypothesis of its own, questions the veracity of one set of data, asserts that this data is the only basis for global warming and concludes that all policy concerning global warming is therefore flawed. All in all, a very nice piece of classic FUD.

nkurz 17y ago
Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" This statement isn't as obvious at you make it seem. A large part of the controversy is what constitutes Global Warming, as opposed to regional. Oddly, by making the statement that receding glaciers are incontrovertible evidence of global warming, you are challenging the current consensus. Much of the question about Climate Change is whether the current climate change is 'unprecedented', and therefore more likely to be correlated with human activity. The current consensus says that the Medieval Warming Period, a period where all parties agree that there was glacial retreat, was only a regional event. Differentiating global warming from regional warming is very difficult, and is focus of this piece. Anecdotal evidence about retreating glaciers doesn't help to clear it up --- what's needed are global datasets as referred to in the article. I believe this is actually why McIntyre started researching the datasets in the first place: he was wondering why the graphs of global warming had 'erased' the MWP. (And while the piece is certainly biased, I wouldn't call it FUD. Etymologically, this makes no sense. If anything, rather than spreading Fear, it's encouraging complacency in the face of what might be a true catastrophe. CUD maybe?)

cturner 17y ago

I believe there are benefits to "clean"(er) energy sources that will lead them to dominate, regardless of environmental views or policy. Ha! It's important that big decisions are made on the basis of cost-benefit comparisons that use reason and real data. First-world foreign policy is directed towards pushing all of the world towards carbon reduction. This includes nations who have very poor people where cost of energy differences at the margins affect your ability to keep your family warm and fed. Carbon reduction puts barriers in front of the people of all nations, and should be justified by real reasons and not thumb in the air judgements.

chasingsparks 17y ago
You misunderstand -- or i did not make clear -- what I meant. I believe for economic reasons, "clean" sources of energy will dominate less "clean" sources of energy -without- policy intervention. I am saying that I believe technologically we are approaching economically viable cleaner sources. I am against carbon taxes, trading, etc, partially for the reason you mentioned but mostly because I think they are unnecessary.
- cturner 17y ago
  apologies
  - chasingsparks 17y ago
    This may be the only board on the internet where a person would ever state apologies. Long live HN.