Monday, April 07, 2003

Global warming skepticism not in the US press 

Here's an interesting article on evidence that "global warming" (I mean, if you can't use scare quotes there ...) may not have a good sense of history. (Link courtesy've been wondering how to post this to our discuss list. If I am a "global warming skeptic", what do you call those who accept it? "Advocates"? "Allies"?

Tried to find links to the article and all I came up with was a discussion board on SlashDot, which went nuts over someone quoting George Reisman, an Austrian economist. Why economics? Because as one of the discussers says, global warming "supporters" (no, that's not the right word either -- what is?) fall into two camps: those scientists who are persuaded by the evidence but still admit room for doubt and say the jury's out; and those who are opposed to capitalism and use scare tactics about global warming to attack capitalism. Reisman deals with the second group, but not without diminishing the first. Skepticism is healthy in science; it's hard to see why calling myself a global warming skeptic means anything more than saying "I'm listening. Give me more evidence."

Meanwhile, where is the American press covering this? Really too busy with the war? Why am I "skeptical" of that argument?