I Disagree with the Consensus

According to John Quiggin (seen via Winds of Change):

In one sense, the blogosphere has reached a near-universal consensus on climate change. Everyone who follows the issue at all closely agrees that there is no real debate. Instead, it's generally agreed, we have a situation where (1) a large body of people devoted to serious scientific research is confronted by (2) pushers of silly Internet talking points who are ideologically motivated, financially driven or just plain delusional . The only disagreement is which group is which.

I disagree with the consensus!

I see a large body of people devoted to serious scientific research confronted by another large body of people devoted to serious scientific research. Both sides resemble another couple of groups, but those consist of pushers of silly Internet talking points who are ideologically motivated, financially driven or just plain delusional.

In other words, the global-warming crisis people resemble (at a distance) anti-nuclear activists and, to make matters worse, are unwilling to criticize them. At the same time, the global-warming non-crisis people resemble (at a distance) creationists and, to make matters worse, are unwilling to criticize them.

My usual position is to be suspicious of people saying “they say” instead of “it is.” I was inclined to be on the “global warming isn't a crisis” side until the anti-warming people came up with their own version of “they say.” Clearly we need to take crisis measures. I recommend more nuclear power, burying carbon in landfills, and covering the oceans with reflective plastic.