I just got through reading a report on the global warming denial conference reported in the Scotsman, a major paper in Scotland.  Curious, I read the comments. or many of them anyway.

As I read them I thought of doing this blog post.

The science of whether or not there is significant anthropogenic global
warming is something that most of us are not well suited to understand
in detail. I certainly am not.  It involves elaborate studies of one of
the most complex systems human beings have yet to try and understand,
our atmosphere.  Many scientific disciplines are involved.

Given my love of the north, I deeply hope the deniers are correct.  I
just as deeply suspect they are likely to be wrong.  How can a
non-expert such as myself make such a judgment?  After all, I will
readily grant that very reputable scientists are unconvinced.

Here’s how.

1. In what direction is the climate of scientific opinion moving?  It
is clearly moving in the direction of saying there is significant
anthropogenic global warming.  This is the most important question by
far.  While very credible scientists remain among the skeptics, they are
declining in number. 

Laypeople such as myself should always hold tentative beliefs on these
matters until there is overwhelming scientific certainty.  Having said
that, when the bulk of scientists studying the matter say as much, and the penalty for
doing nothing is likely to be very high if they are right, it is stupid
not to take action. 

This is especially so when many effective actions could be almost without cost in the medium and eve the short run.  For example, having a carbon tax, and having the income from that used to reduce Social Security taxes.  Zero fiscal impact, but we tax carbon, not labor.  Labor gets cheaper without lowering workers; incomes, carbon more expensive.  The demand for labor grows, the demand for carbon shrinks.

2. Also, at what level is the debate by the different sides being conducted? 
As with arguments against evolution, defending DDT, and defending
tobacco, there is a recurrent pattern.  Other than legitimate scientists who are not convinced, those who argue against the
prevailing and growing scientific opinion generally demonstrate almost
no understanding of the issue, and cover their abysmal ignorance up
with truly vicious ad hominem attacks on scientists and their
supposedly dastardly motives.  The other side f the debate demonstrates a more varied set f motives.  Some are as obnoxious as the deniers, but in my experience, usually not. 

Often the people who have been on the wrong side of these other issues are now vociferously joining the deniers.  Their demonstrated good judgment and track record are both abysmal.

Of course reason number two does not rebut the deniers.  It is possible that the
most unpleasant and meanest of people can be right about something. 
But it is evidence that they do not so much care about the issue or the
science behind it as desire to spread their resentment and anger
towards those who know more about something important than they do. 

It is also evidence that good citizens should probably hold politicians
feet to the fire to do something credible about the issue, for these
people have always been among the worst excuse for a citizen our
country has ever brought forth.

Am I too harsh”?  Go check out the entertaining discussion below the
article I cited, as its readers enter into the discussion, and see whether or not I
am right.