That was not my phrase–Lt. General Russell Honore’ of Katrina fame said it.
Here attached is a message from Joe Bast about the USA today editorial on Warming, and James Taylor’s response.
Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylor was invited to provide a skeptical response to today’s USA Today editorial that claims we still should be worrying about global warming. James did an excellent job with very little editorial space, and readers may vote on whether they agree with each editorial. Please visit USA Today to read these two short items, vote your conscience, and inform others of the debate. You may also wish to leave a comment on either or both items, and of course you may find it appropriate to cite Climate Change Reconsidered 2.
The USA Today editorial is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/30/climate-change-global-warming-polar-vortex-editorials-debates/5066231/.
James’s “Opposing View” is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/30/global-warming-climate-change-editorials-debates/5066143/.
The point that you claim that I missed was not presented by Tayloris. He never claimed that “the slight warming … has now halted.” To the contrary, he says that climate change is happening and CO2 is causing it. His main point is that the effects of warming have been exaggerated — i.e. the consequences are not as disastrous as others claim.
BTW, surely it is a bit presumptuous of you to claim that I belong to a “well heeled crusade” when I have not expressed my view on the subject, only pointed out the weakness and idealogical retreat of Tayloris’ letter.
You miss the point, the slight warming that occurred has now halted, and the modelers and their predictions have failed miserably, with their projections departing from the real world even when they jack with the record.
Sure Taylor could have been more assertive. Maybe you should look at how much your well heeled crusade has failed and not be so elated that Taylor didn’t point out the obvious–you lose, there ain’t no catastrophic anthropogenic warming coming. In fact there are many predicting a cooling trend. Cooler will not be good for the planet or living things. Warmer would have been better all round, wish your side had been right, but noooo, they were wrong. No victory laps for you.
Get a grip.
James Tayloris complains that “Low temperature records are … occurring despite the U.N. … predicting that extreme cold outbreaks will become less frequent…” — but there’s nothing to complain about here. Saying “less frequent” does not mean that a particularly chilly period briefly occurring in one particular part of the world will never occur. But what I found most interesting in Tayloris’ critique is that (1) he agrees that climate change is happening, (2) he agrees that increases in CO2 cause climate change, (3) he implicitly agrees that humans are causing climate change. His main argument is that climate change will not be very disruptive and that it will come with many benefits, such as fewer cases of pneumonia. He even ends his piece saying “Cold spells, heat waves and extreme weather events will continue to occur as our planet modestly warms” — which, except for the qualifier “modestly,” is precisely what the climate scientists he opposes have been saying all along. Wow! — does this show how far climate skeptics have retreated? Now their argument is “yes but we like it warmer!”
The lame stream media is pretty much stuck on stupid as they support every leftist bone-head scheme and meme. I’ve dropped all subscriptions to such publications — and rarely bother to read USA Today. I probably haven’t read a USA Today in 20 years…
It seems USA Today has significantly changed the definition of the word “dramatic”.
Sounds like the Lewandowski and Cook survey that resulted in the 97% figure. It was obtained by some careful culling of the responses.
“But climate scientists are 95% to 100% sure that human activity — emission of greenhouse gases — is the dominant cause of dramatic warming.”
What is USAToday talking about?