Easterbrook accepts global warming 8

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   TokyoTom Posted 6:11 pm
   23 May 2006

   Defectees include Ron Bailey and Michael ShermerDavid, you might expand this meme a little bit, as long-time skeptics Ron Bailey of Reason and Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society have recently seen the light as well (although Bailey remains reluctant to take any action).
   See April 3, 2006 [Losing Bet on Climate Change; Temperatures are rising--what now?], and
   The Flipping Point].
   It's good to see that the House Appropriations Committee recently joined the Senate in approving a resolution calling for mandatory GHG measures.  Does this mean that people are finally finding the gumption to challenge the
   
   feeding frenzy in which this Administration has been selling the common good to special interests?
   TT
   
    

   Permalink

2. 

   Kif Scheuer Posted 11:19 pm
   23 May 2006

   ironyit's funny how in his mea culpa Easterbrook defends his position based on uncertainties from as far back as 1993, then shows how the science shifted from a raft of evidence in the early 2000s.
   So, what was holding back his concsssion 3-5 years ago?
   I've got to believe a lot of these conversions are more a result of the publicity global warming is getting these days than a genuine reassessment of the science.

   Permalink

3. 

   Kif Scheuer Posted 12:04 am
   24 May 2006

   another conversion?David Attenborough has come over too
   But I'm no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world.

   Permalink

4. 

   Phila Posted 3:47 am
   24 May 2006

   It's worse than that...Easterbrook's quotes from the 1990s are uterly fraudelent. The NAS urged immediate action in its 1991 report; in context, "no evidence" referred to "imminent rapid change" (i.e., runaway global warming). The rest of the report specifically says that waiting for more research before taking action is a bad idea.
   There are other problems, too...I detailed 'em here.

   Permalink

5. 

   Phila Posted 3:47 am
   24 May 2006

   OopsFraudulent, that is.

   Permalink

6. 

   David Roberts Posted 3:57 am
   24 May 2006

   Phila,Good stuff!
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

7. 

   rivergal Posted 11:15 am
   24 May 2006

   Still Waiting For John Stossel's Concession SpeechStossel gave Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" much more attention than it deserved, bloated, sensational, poorly researched tome that it was.  I generally avoid Stossel as much as I avoid Easterbrook (couldn't Brookings find a better scientist?), so maybe I've missed something, but I don't think Dave has jumped on the "me too!" bandwagon yet.

   Permalink

8. 

   MarchDancer Posted 6:12 am
   30 May 2006

   Now It's The Popular Thing To DoAH-HA! Remember back to as far as middle school (Jr. Hi in earlier days) when who and what was popular was the right thing to do?
   In High School the popular things created cliques of everything from "who cares?" to those who read Camus and claimed to understand him completely. In between was the Popular Group, the ones who shunned all and everything and made idiotic decisions based on group-think.
   What we're seeing now is that those of the former Popular Group have been left far behind and so have been forced take a huge leap to join a New Popular Group. Who cares about the science? It's all about what others think of you.
   Nothing says silly more than those who have been left behind and, in order to regain popularity, make a leap to join the majority while making excuses for their former stands.
   
   In Peace, Harmony and Unity may we find ways to work together to meet our common goal - the health of our earthly Home.

   Permalink