Two recommendations on climate change

As a follow up to my recent post on the climate change debate, let me suggest two more articles posted today:

In today's Wall Street Journal Holman Jenkins Jr has the piece Climateers Can't Handle the Truth, in which he examines the New York Times' claim, echoed endlessly by the rest of the liberal press, that Scott Pruitt, Trump's pick for EPA head, is a "climate denialist".  In fact, Jenkins argues, the claim is based entirely on one line from one Op Ed piece that Pruitt wrote this year that said “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”  The statement is absolutely true; scientists do indeed disagree about the degree and extent of global warming, just as they debate and disagree about lots of other things in science.  This is a simple statement of fact, not the least bit unusual in science (in fact, lack of debate and disagreement about a scientific study would be far more unusual) , and not a denial of global warming.  It is another warning not to believe everything one reads these days, even from supposedly unbiased mainstream reporting.

My second recommendation is Francis Menton's piece in the Manhattan Contrarian, How To Tell Who's Lying To You: Climate Change Edition. It's always a mistake to listen to only one side of a debate. Menton gives a pretty good introduction to the other side of the debate.

Unfortunately, just when we ought to be having a rational, informed worldwide debate about just how much we expect the climate to change, and what would be the best course to mitigate the effects, the whole issue has become so politicized that no rational discussion is possible. Anyone who doesn't profess absolute belief in the doomsday dogma of the green movement is clearly an ignoramus. This is hardly a healthy way to deal with this subject.

(And, no doubt, The Times would argue that this post proves that I too am a climate change denier, even though I am not!)