Fervor Fever

SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING and ECONOMY

In a recent post at Economist's View, I suggested that before everyone committed to spending hundreds of billions of dollars to reduce CO2 production because it causes global warming, that they look at the volumes of work that question both the causality connection between CO2 and climate change, and that they consider that the data itself may be incorrect or biased. I provided several links to Colorado University's CIRES effort.

The responses are typical of what one might expect from recent religious converts:

• Mr. Hall, why don't you just can it?

  Sorry to be so rude but you're shouting in an empty room.
  

• Bruce Hall is right about one thing, the NOAA has been political under the anti-scientic (sic) barrage of the Bush administration. This barrage has undermined the integrity of every public institution that relies on science to do its work....the EPA, NASA, NOAA, NIH, the list goes on.

  http://www.realclimate.org/

• We got the answers from reading the peer reviewed science, Bruce. Over the years a multi-disciplinary scientific consensus built up that the earth is getting warmer; most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities; the warming will continue and indeed accelerate as long as our greenhouse gas emissions continue. In short this is a problem and we ought to do something about it.
  
  The paper by Pielke (Sr.) that Bruce pathetically cites in hopes of stirring doubt about the validity of the overwhelming multi-disciplinary scientific consensus calls for improvements in methods of measuring the earth’s temperature. Great. Improvements are welcome. We can watch the temperature soar with increased accuracy.
  
  For a profile on Pielke Sr. and Jr. see http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/announcement_files/1020-uploaded/announcement-1020-1906.pdf
  
  Of course the article tries to create a false choice. We need to adapt to the climate change that is unstoppable no matter what we do to try to prevent it and we need to try to prevent what we can.

My last response was:

Odd how "peer reviewed" only seems to apply to those who buy into anthropogenic global warming scenarios. Those who disagree or suggest examining data in a different light based on their "peer reviewed" work are deemed "climate skeptics."

Quran 2.39. But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.

Religous fervor.