I don't know exactly how long I've been skeptical of the great hoax that Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) has proven to be, but a thoughtful researcher might check the archives of Cobb to make the point. They have always been open. Here's a classic quote from me:
As it happens, I've been searching Slate's archives to find more editorial cartoons from Tony Auth who penned one with the subtitle "Obama's Believe It Or Not". The picture showed troops in Afganistan on an escalator directed by Obama. On the side of the escalator was the word 'Escalation', but at the top of the escalator was the sign 'Exit'. I think that oxymoron and the subtitle encapsulates the Obama presidency quite well - as well as the press infatuation with the idiot socialite party crashers to a state dinner at which strategic alliances with India should have been the subject of coverage.
In that search, I found a couple things to be true. After having watched about 50 cartoons, the first thing that can be said is that they are a perfect form of infotainment and are rarely reliable about anything except the simplest of public opinions. They never fail to make obvious and two dimensional, a multidimensional issue, and in that they can be a useful shorthand for the popular, conventional, unexpert and mass opinion. When applied to the matter of AGW that becomes overwhelmingly clear.
Before I show the killer example of this, I want to bring to your attention the importance of the ability for the President to articulate the policy and direction of his Administration in a similarly two dimensional way. It should be clear and continuous so that a person following that Administration gradually gets a 3d picture. In every snapshot of Obama's articulations, we get blur. We did not have that sort of evasion with GWBush. And so with that, consider the following editorial cartoon by Stuart Carlson:
It should be obvious by now that the theory of AGW is based on a fraud. The Telegraph has a very useful article by Christopher Booker that gives a clear sketch of the history and the culprits and the implications of the deception.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
As I started this essay, I thought about entitling it 'The Natural Advantage of Conservatism' but I tire of politics, and I didn't want to imply with any relish that this revelation is a big win for my political side. Politically speaking, it's going to take just as long to unwind the 'thinking' and money invested in all this green hogwash as it did ginning the whole kaboodle up in the first place. (But I am selling my chromium futures).
I simply want to be correct. And that is why I am curious and skeptical and analytical. I don't have any need to play gotcha, even though it is entertaining to have one's skepticism rewarded. But I am looking at the language of this article in the Telegraph which names the names of the culprits behind the hugely anti-scientific deception and obstruction of Mann, Briffa et al, who had previously been given the honorific of being portrayed as a literal tidal wave of truth. You don't get that kind of reportage on a daily basis. We suffer from lazy reporters and their dimbulb language, which is why people like me filter news through intelligent bloggers. It has been over 15 years since I got my news from television, and at the time it was strictly Charlie Rose and before that only the Sunday morning interview shows, and before that only the Nightly Business Report. The last time I trusted the likes of Wolf Blitzer and George Will, who were among the best TV had to offer, was 1989. I sometimes forget how unusual that makes me.
Still the point remains that people who are engaged in professional pursuits of Progressive political interest tend towards debasing their profession in search of the revolutionary while calling it Progress. Just this week I hear of a revolution in Mammography. C'mon. These things actually take time. I'm thinking that perhaps I ought to coin another rule about being wary of people who claim to be on the bleeding edge of anything.
The late Michael Crichton had the right idea. He tantalized us with the possibilities of what's next and reminded us always of human fallibility in his novels, and he was a skeptic of AGW as well in his speeches.
PS. To Laurie David: Drop dead.