This lgm chap has to be a troll who just likes to stir the pot.

Bingo! Just scroll on by his disingenuous ramblings.

OK. Maybe there’s a 1% chance that the scientific establishment is wrong on global warming. I would rather act on the 99% chance that they’re right.

It’s good to see that lgm’s mind is only 99% closed…

One problem I have with the “scientific establishment” is their poor track record for predicting the future, especially whenever they proclaim “the end is near.” They have proven themselves to be terrible prophets.

From dire predictions about overpopulation destroying the world (see The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich) to DDT creating a “silent spring”, the science of the day has been wrong. We didn’t follow the advice of Ehrlich and wipe out millions of people to prevent the mass starvation he said was around the corner. But we did take the advice of Rachel Carson to ban DDT. That resulted in the deaths of millions of children to malaria. DDT is now legal again for some uses because the science used to ban it was flawed.

We have yet to die from depletion of the Ozone Layer, or from pollution, or from genetic engineering, or from global cooling, or from the “accelerated” global warming that scientists say is occurring right now. We’re still here. These scientists have yet to get one single gloom and doom prediction right. So lgm puts 99% confidence in people who have a track record of being 100% wrong. And we’re supposed to believe them without question. Sorry, but the odds are with the “deniers.”

it would seem you’re contradicted by the the MSM releasing the reports that temperatures have dropped for the past 11 years

That MSM would be Fox. When scientists are convinced, I’ll listen.

vatodio said (#37):

This gut at EPA is not a schentist, so anything he writes on Global Warming is meaningless. But Krugman is qualified to opine on the subject?

He’s qualified to report what they’re saying. He’s not qualified to contradict them, or to make their case on his own.

Papa Louie said (#38):

Political disagreements are not treason. Treason is a high crime like murder. Don’t go casually accusing people of murder. …

I was surprised that you mentioned both treason and Krugman in the same comment until I read his column. Sure enough he uses the T word against those evil climate change deniers:

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

Point taken. We all should back off from the t-word.

jah (#43): OK. Maybe there’s a 1% chance that the scientific establishment is wrong on global warming. I would rather act on the 99% chance that they’re right.

On June 29th, 2009 at 11:35 pm, lgm said:

Read Krugman’s column today. The science is not in doubt. Global warming is proceeding faster than predictions.

The science is always in doubt. That is the essence of science.

Richard Feynman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAuKjDlUDw&feature=related

The money quote is at the end — “We can never be right, we can only be sure we are wrong”

Science is never settled, questions must always be asked and so called truths challenged otherwise you do not have science you have a religion.

Actual economic projections show a very small effect on the economy. Less than a percent in the long run. A small price to pay for saving the planet.

Really? Lets see these “projections”