6 blog reactions to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-board-head-still-buried-in-the-sand/

evidence for climate change - three arguments that were dispensed with as rubbish years ago. Why they continue to resurface in any venue, particularly one associated with a presumably leading media outlet, is beyond me (but then WSJ has a history - see here or here). The three points: 1) "ice-core data showing that temperature rises tend to precede CO2 increases by about 1,000 years." Yes, in a naturally warming world CO2 increases in the atmosphere. This does not mean that any CO2 increase in the

are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him." Logical Science: Defending the scientific consensus from vested interests Uncivil War Cold Case vs. CSI Nigel Calder in the Times WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand

than in IPCC TAR (no they weren’t), that the human contribution to recent changes has been ‘cut by a third’ (no it hasn’t), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn’t - the clue is in the name). WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand And in another place: Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that

t), that the human contribution to recent changes has been ‘cut by a third’ (no it hasn’t), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn’t - the clue is in the name). WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand And in another place: Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that