It looks like I wasn’t only person to notice the absurdity and misinformation provided by the Wall Street Journal article referenced in the last post.
- Forbes has an excellent rebuttal, and points out, among other things, that the WSG recently turned down an opportunity to publish an article by actual climate scientists.
- Pointing out the silliness of asking people in unrelated fields to write about climate, Media Matters, runs the headline, “The Journal Hires Dentists to Do Heart Surgery.”
- A writer at the New York Times speaks with an economics professor, William Nordhaus, whose research is quoted in the WSG article. “The piece completely misrepresented my work,” says Nordhaus.
- Meanwhile, at Intersection, Chris Mooney, ask an interesting question. Aside from the majority of the scientific community, who is taking climate change seriously and taking action? Among the answers are the Pentagon, ExxonMobile, BP, and Chevron.
The Times article quotes Mr. Nordhaus on his actual view of the economic consequences of climate change. His answer is that climate change is unlikely to have catastrophic effects in the short-term, but has a potential for serious damage in the long run. A salient quote: “The total discounted economic damages with no abatement are in the order of $23 trillion. These damages can be significantly reduced with well-designed policies, but poorly designed ones, like the current Kyoto Protocol, are unlikely to make a dent in the damages, will have substantial costs, and may cool enthusiasms for more efficient approaches.” I recommend the article.
Please note that there is no hue and cry here about “exponential” warming and imminent destruction. Those who deny climate change use the very same tactics used by the “9/11 was a U.S. conspiracy” believers, by the people who want to teach creationism in science class, and by the once vibrant “cigarettes aren’t bad for you” lobby. The tactics: find and use anyone who can sound like an expert without regard to actual expertise, distort the position of the opponent, and take quotes out of context to support your opinion.