Global Warming Crowd: Just Go With It, OK?

The Boston Globe published an Op-Ed from John P. Holdren who is a professor at The Kennedy School of Government and also teaches in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard (I guess we're supposed to take that John is smart and, therefore, beyond reproach from us simpletons). The Globe put the piece in the Op-Ed section because they apparently don't have a "Just Do As We Say You Stupid Retards" section.

The good professor maintains that global warming / climate change is, in fact, a reality, and that the "...the few climate-change 'skeptics' with any sort of scientific credentials..." are merely suffering from a three-step version of the 5-step grieving process. Here's how Professor John says it goes: Step 1 - climate change simply doesn't exist; step 2 - climate change exists, but humans aren't responsible; and step 3 - ok, you environmental nut jobs are right, but it's too late to do anything about it.

Awesome - there are few better (and more cowardly) ways to marginalize your opponent's position than to chalk it up to some simple mental disorder. We've all done it at some point, either as a joke or in an actual debate. One usually accomplishes this by saying, "You're just in denial." At which point, the target denies being in denial, and the hilarity ensues. Instead of arguing the original point, the aggressor effectively forced the victim to go off-topic and explain why he isn't in denial. It's a cheap shot.

I had higher hopes for a Harvard professor. In attempting to convince the skeptics that global warming is not only a man-made phenomenon, but poses a serious threat as well, I would think that he would bring some hard science. How about explaining why the warmest year in history was in 1934 and not any of the past 20 years? Or why the ocean's have been getting colder since 2003? Or why 2007 was the coldest winter in the US in decades?

Instead he goes with yet another intellectually-void argument of demanding the opposition prove a negative. John states that the skeptics "...have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed..."

In other words, John and the global warming crowd are saying "prove to us that global warming is not man-made." Apart from being logical nonsense, that approach is a complete antithesis to the scientific process. Science should constantly test it's assumptions and theories for validity. And nothing should be taken as a cold-hard fact when it is not yet fully understood - we can't accurately predict the weather more than 48 hours in advance, how could we possibly know everything that goes into the planet's entire climate?

The rest of the article consist of John dropping names - "Well, these people believe it's real, and they're way more important than you, so you have to believe it to." He also states that all global warming skepticism is "unfounded." This is akin to putting your hands over your ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting "SHUT UP! YOU'RE WRONG!" Also known as a temper tantrum.

For a good balance to Professor John's little diatribe, check out this article from The Australian. Now, if you'll excuse me, I broke a couple compact fluorescent light bulbs over the weekend, and I'm only 1 step into the day-long 4-step clean-up process.