- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Using a false analogy with the Iraq WMD fraud to attack climate change is dishonest and built on an appeal to ignorance. The WMD fraud was based on microscopic scraps of secret evidence which even as it was tauted by the media was doubted by experts in the field (remember France and the UN?) and imploded at the first real data.
A better analogy would be to evolution or quantum theory, which began as narrow concepts but now are surrounded by vast and detailed data and supporting theory and calculation over a wide range of scales and disciplines, data all public and available. Yes, it helps to understand some mathematics, statistics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetics, chemistry, oceanography, fluid mechanics, biology and all that but with a little looking you can see how throughly picked over climate change concepts are and how well supported. Like evolution, each new discovery and improvement in model details (mostly driven by bigger computers) has buttressed the idea, a bad model would have fallen apart long ago.
If you say climate change theory is wrong - show me the more complete model and better and more extensive data to tell me what the real effect of the changes in CO2 concentration are, not just politically or philosophically inspired gut reaction.
