global-warming dogmatism

If you need any proof that the scientific "consensus" surrounding global warming is shrouded in dogmatism, look no further:

After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president's assessment of how close countries are to agreement, [former Thatcher advisor Lord Christopher] Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.

"In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming," Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world's top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.

As Monckton was escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his U.N. credentials, several people noted that just a few hours earlier a group of young activists had been thrown out of the convention center and deported. Their crime: unfurling an unauthorized banner calling for the Qatari hosts to lead the negotiations to a strong conclusion.

By late today, several activists attending the conference had posted calls to "deport Monckton" on their Twitter feeds.

Fuckin' idiots.

Granted: the above kerfuffle says nothing about whether anthropogenic global warming is real. But that's not my point in this post: my point is to highlight the dogmatism that infuses discussions of global warming and climate change-- a dogmatism that masks insecurity about how solid the data are. The fact is that there's room for reasonable, rational discussion on this issue, and it's hilarious just how irrational the members of the "consensus" can be. And they have the nerve to accuse the skeptics of irrationality.

(Related post here. My thoughts on environmentalism: here, here, and here.)


_