The WSJ has yet another op-ed telling us not to worry about global warming (after they've published this, this, this, this, this, and this, to sample just a few of the 23,800 results of this Google Search; give them credit though for at least publishing this and this). The arguments of this latest one have been debunked repeatedly over the last couple years by experts in the field, though the author has dressed them up as if he has something new to say.
They've got my blood pressure up, so here's another Facebook note.
I've already explained the basic science and addressed some of the bad logic applied all too often to this issue. Now I just want to express from my high horse why the editorial bias of the WSJ gets me so upset.
Skepticism in science is good and healthy and productive. Skepticism in the face of intense human suffering is morally abhorrent.
The suffering is already here. That is the judgment of this article published this past week in Nature Climate Change. The last couple years have seen records for droughts and weather disasters smashed all over the globe. But rather than quote statistics, I will shamelessly ask you to look at the following slideshows. Look into the victims' eyes. Especially the children's eyes.
Mandatory caveat: There is no way to directly connect any of these disasters to man-made global warming. But we can say for most of them that man-made global warming made the intensity of the disasters more likely—in some cases much more likely; in some cases, we aren't yet sure altogether—similar to the way a baseball player on steroids hits more home runs or a loaded die rolls more sixes.
The planet has warmed about 1°C in the past century. Climate models project between an additional 1°C and 3°C in the next few decades.
I almost never address policy issues related to global warming because I know little about economics. If the WSJ editorial board is convinced that this or that energy policy doesn't make economic sense, I'm not qualified to object. But I'm confident enough in my ability to judge scientific evidence to say this: those who don't at least take seriously the proposition that human activity is warming the planet with vast destructive consequences will be judged by history as cruel to their grandchildren.
Phew. Feel much better now.
