Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.
Latest posts by Jim Lakely (see all)
- PODCAST: Charlie Kirk and Brent Hamachek on Time for a Turning Point - February 14, 2017
- Yes, New York Times Commenter Maggie Mae, ‘The Heartland’ Matters - January 9, 2017
- The Year in Climate Realism: A Review of 2016 - January 6, 2017
On January 28, a group of 18 scientists signed a letter to Congress demanding action to stop climate change. The letter also took cheap shots at “deniers” — such as the scores of scientists who have attended and spoken at The Heartland Institute’s five International Conferences on Climate Change.
On February 8, an even larger group of scientists wrote a letter to Congress in rebuttal. It stated, in part:
The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.
To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.
Well, and impartial referee has weighed in — the well-respected Judith Curry, chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Curry wrote at her Climate Etc. blog:
Judge Judy’s verdict: Score one for the “deniers”. Rationale:
1. The consensus scientists attempt to dismiss the skeptical scientists by calling them “deniers.” By contrast, the skeptics refute the statement made by the consensus scientists that there is no scientific evidence that refutes the consensus, and are not disrespectful in the process.
2. The skeptics have come up with a relatively impressive list of signatories, with 2 NAS members (compared to 6 on the consensus list). Many of the people on the skeptics list are not people that are easily dismissed
3. The consensus scientists fired the first “shot” in this insane little battle.
It wouldn’t matter if this was a victimless war. The chief victim is climate science and its credibility.
Read the whole thing, and the comments, here.