Below, I wrote about the pro-global warming "climate rapid response team" (scroll down). But, if the science is valid, why do they need to fight so much "skepticism"? After all, these same people have been making, over and over, the same case for more than twenty years.
Perhaps they are being tuned out because they fail to address both the increasing doubts about the certainty of the science and the dogmatic (as opposed to an open exchange of ideas) approach to engaging those who question their beliefs.
Consider: The "smart money" is fleeing the pro-GW cause. The latest evidence is the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange. Established with great fanfare, it will shut down trading over the next 30 days.
Now, if the science was "overwhelmingly" on the side of restricting carbon dioxide, do you believe the price Friday would have been 5¢ per ton (down from more than $7 per ton)? Of course not.
As things move farther and farther away from "consensus," rather than interact with the general public and skeptics of the IPCC hypothesis in a respectful, constructive manner, the rapid response team plans to,
aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,
Do we really need more "aggressive" engagement on this topic? Do we need more name-calling ("denialists")? These are signs of desperation rather than confidence.
I want this blog's many new readers (thank you!) to know that I do support changes in energy production and I do believe there is a chance we will have to take major action due to increasing carbon dioxide levels. But, right now, there is no evidence that we need to take immediate draconian measures for the reasons stated at the links in this paragraph.
One thing is for sure: the earth's temperature would probably drop another 0.1°C if the pro-global warming forces would dedicate themselves to creating light rather than heat.
UPDATE: 4:40PM Monday: The AGU backs off. Good for them!