If six minutes to midnight sounds bad, consider that until just recently, it was five minutes to midnight.

The scientist give two reasons for this.  One seems reasonable, the other does not.

The first has to do with efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation.  It seems sensible enough. The other reason given, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is:

And for the first time ever, industrialized and developing countries alike are pledging to limit climate-changing gas emissions that could render our planet nearly uninhabitable.

We don’t think climate change should yet be considered a doomsday scenario.  Yes, climate change will almost certainly be bad, and there is a high probability of rapidly accelerating feedback effects taking hold:

But, also, a lot of people that purchased beach front property in Arizona are going to make a lot of money. And boat owners will see a sharp rise in their commodity and its source of use.

Those who love really hot deserts and find peace and tranquility in places like California’s “death valley” should also be happy (though, unfortunately, death valley itself will be well under water).

So we are not sure that climate change, while likely very bad, and, potentially, extremely bad, should necessarily occupy a place alongside potential nuclear annihilation just yet.

However, that is not the real problem with the climate change point that these scientists make.

Notice what these scientists say.  ”For the first time ever… are pledging to limit climate changing gases.”

Technically this is true. Over a decade ago, not all industrialized and non industrialized countries made such pledges. Only most did. And since that time, have done little to nothing to give those pledges any meaning.

Likewise, a relevant admonition for these scientists now: “Pledges” mean next to nothing.

Particularly when the debate in the country that is the world leader, is still essentially a medieval flat earth society type debate of science versus anti science ideology driven rhetoric, or wildly uninformed yet boldly assertive ideology posing as science; not one of “what are the likely outcomes, what is the most sensible outcome to take.” We think these scientists are not seeing the full picture.

Indeed, in the U.S., we are one step short of simply arguing against physics itself, at this point.

Quoting from the link itself (NRO’s gloriously subjective “The Corner” blog, with emphasis added):

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this UN session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Yes, no reliable records of global surface temperature indeed would mean that climate change does not exist!

All the following, accepted, incontrovertible facts

1. That during the industrial age the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen nearly 38 percent
2. That at no time in history according to the geologic record has it ever shifted this rapidly, and by at least an order of magnitude or more
3. That concomitant with this rise, mankind is decreasing carbon sinks through deforestation, and putting out massive amounts of CO2 that took millions of years to accumulate via the burning of fossil fuels, as well as high levels of other greenhouse gases such as methane via broad ranging livestock domestication, and that this rise can be directly attributable to anthropomorphic activities as a result
4. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat that would otherwise radiate back out of the atmosphere
5. Heat drives climate
6. We are conducting an enormous and wild long term scientific experiment on the earth as a result, with no controls (that is, sister planets that are otherwise identical save for the anthropomorphic induced greenhouse gas concentration increases)

Would all disappear!  Presto, like magic.

This idea was probably very appealing to Insta-BS, since for some reason, since it is (wrongly) believed that changing over to sensible fuel sources would cut rather than simply alter the nature and makeup of long term “economic” production, it is almost de rigeuer among staunch conservatives for many years — years during which all of the above six facts were well known, and incontrovertible — to deny climate change as a fallacy, or perhaps as a hoax. (As Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe still contends).

But we don’t know, Insta BS has become a bit of a practical environmentalist… still, if we could make all that data disappear? 

This is great fun. In fact, the NRO guest columnist who penned this otherwise rather interesting piece, Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels, almost as much as noted this when he began a subsequent paragraph in this interesting, but “dry” piece, thusly: 

Now begins the fun.

Now, indeed.

While not always in agreement, we’re rather fans of the Cato Institute, but believe them to go a bit awry when allowing politics to enter into the analysis of what is pure science, on what is also, as suggested, the mistaken belief that not what we sensibly choose, but what we happened to have earlier gotten used to relying upon, must persist as the solid driver of long term prosperity.

We’re also fans, sometimes, of rather long sentences. 

And short ones.  Like this.  See.