Top Science Journal Challenges Green Carbon Assumptions
show comments
  • Dave

    It’s useful to remember that the way the “greenhouse effect” resulting from rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere was supposed to manifest itself was in rising troposphere temperatures in temperate latitudes.

    Satellite measurements have shown no such warming. I’m left to conclude that either the effect of rising CO2 is minimal, or that the effect, if it occurs at all, must be the result of another process.

    For me, the problem was never about the flakey science, which was inevitably going to be discredited by later, actual observations, rather than model projections, but about the enormously destructive and ineffective public policy prescriptions that leftist politicians proposed in response to that bad science.

  • Scott

    I find my personal evolution in this area fascinating (maybe because it’s about me). I originally was quite alarmed by the dire reports on global warming. I’m not a scientist so I do what I do in all subjects beyond my own field and that is to read as much as I can from different sources.

    Slowly I grew very weary of the preachy and mocking tone of many of the scientists calling for what seemed to me to be a death knell for economic life as we know it. Too many times their argument used phrases such as “settled science” and “all real scientists agree”. Both of which were red flags that something was amiss.

    I’m now in what seems to be called the “skeptic” camp. I would think all scientists would have skepticism implanted in their DNA. I guess it’s better than being a “denier” but it still seems to miss the point.

    Too much is unknown to warrant the kind of action called on by alarmists just because something really, really bad can be envisioned. If we made public policy only on remote possibilities of hell on earth, we would be really screwed up. I tend to favor policy created based on what is known and keeping options open to adapt to changing circumstances.

    The alarmists have done themselves no favor by their screeching. I’ve not been bought by big oil or some other boogeyman. However, I have read the alarmists own words and those words pushed me squarely into what they now call the world of skeptics.

  • WigWag

    “This is modern science in action: some of the best minds in the discipline probing the validity of others’ hypotheses in the interest of advancing our understanding of the world around us.” (Walter Russell Mead)

    I am sure that Dr. Schmittner, the author of the paper in question, is delighted that Professor Mead considers him to be one of the “best minds in the discipline.” After all, Dr. Schmittner is a climatologist and it was only a few short days ago when Professor Mead assured us that unlike physicists, climatologists were neither rigorous nor mature.

    On November 19th, in his post entitled “Settled: this is what Professor Mead had to say,

    “What’s interesting, of course, is how much more mature physicists seem to be than climatologists.”

    I guess that Professor Mead measures the maturity level of climatologists by whether the data they generate and the analysis they provide of that data comports with his instincts about what is really happening with climate change. Good for Dr. Schmittner; apparently he’s one of the very few “mature” climatologists around. He must be very proud.

    In his November 19th post, Professor Mead also said,

    “If physicists can control themselves while the most fundamental elements of their worldview are challenged by a handful of researchers with some interesting but quite tricky and potentially flawed results, then the climate world should be able to handle controversy with a little less venom as well.”

    By the time the next issue of “Science” is out there will almost certainly be a few letters to the editor from other climatologists commenting on Schmittner’s findings. I would bet the house that none of those letters are venom-filled rants. It’s not academic climatologists who are prone to exaggeration or vituperative commentary; it’s on cable television, in newspapers and in blogs where most of the venom is to be found. It’s not the maturity of climatologists that we should be questioning.

    For anyone interested in the actual abstract of Schmittner’s “Science” paper entitled, “Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum” as opposed to the summary that can be found in the “Economist,” it can be found here,

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513.abstract?sid=bc5169f1-e7ca-425a-8b2c-81bf1c29e44b

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    I like CO2, it’s plant food. Experiments have shown that the increase in CO2 from 280ppm to the present day 390ppm, have led to 15% greater plant growth. Since plants are at the bottom of the food pyramid, this means 15% more life on earth. More phytoplankton means more fish in the sea, more grain, fruits, vegetables, nuts, tubers, grass, leaves, etc… means more animals and people.
    So why are the environmentalists against more life?
    Maybe they are more like beggars, that need a horrifying sob story, in order to generate greater donations (grants, taxes, carbon markets, regulators)? Maybe like professional beggars it’s all a scam, with fake ailments, disguised poverty, and study group created sob stories (the hole in the ozone layer will burn us all with radiation)(Global Warming will destroy us with floods, famine, desertification, and other horrifying unmentionable things).

  • K

    One problem with objecting to “peer reviewed” science due to cronyism and corruption is that it tends to also nuke out such papers when they’re in your favor.

    The fact of the matter is that the AGW hysterics have done substantial and lasting damage to science as an institution – with the acquiescence of big science itself. The long term effects of this are not going to be pretty.

  • Gene

    WigWag, you are one angry individual. I must say i admire the consistency of your seething, but i worry about your blood pressure.

  • Otiose8

    “It’s not academic climatologists who are prone to exaggeration or vituperative commentary; it’s on cable television, in newspapers and in blogs where most of the venom is to be found. It’s not the maturity of climatologists that we should be questioning.”

    Dry humor from WigWag.

    Anyone not in a coma for the last 10 years has heard plenty of ‘vituperative commentary’ from academic climatologists who weren’t doing ‘science’ when they were attacking any scientist expressing doubt about their exaggerated claims regarding the end of the world as we know it.

    The skeptics I’ve read regarding climate change propaganda were by and large mostly well behaved and measured in their criticism of the establishment government funded scientists aided my establishment media people pumping out daily exaggerations to bring about a political agenda that had little to do with solving climate problems -real or imaginary.

    My regret is that the skeptics didn’t break through sooner. The EPA has gone rogue tilting lances at imaginary carbon problems using regulations that unfortunately have not so imaginary economic effects. And, here in California the whole of the state machinery couldn’t wait either before launching into ‘solutions’ supported by no reliable science, but that will reliably drain economic resources.

  • a nisssen

    “green Malthusians” that’s wonderful word-smithing WRM! And I would like to say the worst of them for a very long time have made me as mad as they increasingly appear to do you. So why shouldn’t you brand ’eman extreme that denies reality’s shades of gray, and be done with it? Because contempt disguised as passive aggression is far below your capacity.

    I keep coming back to this site for the great parsing and how it generates even great sparring. And because you improve the tone of the comments by making us assume you manage them for civility during the posting delay.

    Fizz I can find all over the place. The interests are deep into promoting fizz as means to maintain the phony great divides they use to keep the masses off scent of critical thinking. Highly smelly times=pretty desperate tactics. Keep the powder dry.

  • Corlyss

    Everyone know NOVA, the long-running paean to science on PBS? Well, when AGW was just a gleam in the IPCC’s beady little eyes, NOVA had a program about a young woman geologist whose doctoral thesis was on atmospheric C02 and its causes. Her findings were that human activity contributed less than one 10th of some astronomically small percentage of CO2, while plate techtonics contributed many thousands times as much. Of course, the IPCC and the anti-prosperity crowd couldn’t do anything about plate techtonics, so THAT study was probably dropped into the mid-Atlantic trench. That was the last anything was ever heard of it. And naturally, it’s not a program one can find in NOVA’s dvds for sale.

  • Corlyss

    @ Wig

    The link only goes to the abstract. The article is behind a pay wall. Got a link to the entire text?

  • WigWag

    “This is modern science in action…” (Walter Russell Mead)

    With all due respect for Professor Mead, reading this post in combination with his November 19th post entitled “Settled” leads one to wonder if he understands anything about modern science at all.

    Professor Mead is right, “Science” is one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world; the other is a European journal called “Nature.” What makes “Science” different from other journals is that it is not discipline-specific; it accepts papers about biology and medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, the earth sciences (including climatology)and many other areas. The competition to get a paper published in “Science” is fierce; scores or even hundreds of papers (that end up being published elsewhere) are rejected for every one that is accepted.

    “Science” decides what papers to accept based on the advice of an editorial board made of investigators who specialize in the area of the submitted paper; it’s called peer review.

    Dr. Schmittner’s submission would have been reviewed by other prestigious academic climatologists who would have had to conclude that Schmittner’s paper passed muster. If Professor Mead is right that climatologists are a wild, vitriolic and immature bunch that’s already made up its mind that catastrophic man made global warming is real, how does he explain why the climatologists on the “Science” editorial board decided to publish Schmittner’s paper? After all, they gave it one of the tiny number of coveted spots. Could it be that they are a little less “immature” than Professor Mead claimed they were in his November 19th post? Maybe their maturity level stacks up pretty well against that of physicists after all.

    But it goes further than that. In the “Science” paper, Schmittner acknowledges grant support from the National Science Foundation. The NSF also uses peer review to make its funding decisions. Funding is extraordinarily tight; ten grant applications are typically rejected for every one that receives financial support. The application that Schmittner submitted to NSF was certainly reviewed by a panel consisting of university based climatologists (they typically serve for 2 or 3 year terms without pay). If the community of climatologists is as out of control and wacko as Professor Mead suggested in his November 19th post, how does he explain how the grant that became the basis for Schmittner’s “Science” publication was funded in the first place?

    It’s not the climatologists who are out of control; it’s the press and the bloggers. The Greens (who mostly aren’t scientists) exaggerate and so do their opponents (who mostly aren’t scientists either). Professor Mead takes a unique angle (he thinks man made global warming is probably real but that environmentalists are mostly nuts). That’s fine, but he is as prone to exaggerate as all the other laymen engaging in this debate. It looks like the climatologists are the only mature people in the room.

    One last thing; for the nonexpert reading journal articles is hard; reading a summary of journal articles in the popular press (like the Economist) is easy. The problem is that the popular press rarely summarizes scientific articles carefully or accurately. What tends to get left out is the nuance and the caveats included in the paper. This in itself contributes to the general silliness of the debate in the public square.

  • wmar

    Russ: What is your definition of climate sensitivity? Do you use the Charney 1979, the Lunt et al 2010, or the Pagani 2006 definition? Your choice of definition does make a difference, especially about whether the Schmittner paper is seen as more “conservative” or more “doomsday.” Do give us your perspective here.

  • Rob Crawford

    “It’s not the maturity of climatologists that we should be questioning.”

    Really? Have you seen how they talk about people who disagree in the slightest? I’ve seen less venom from teen-age girls.

  • Rosignol

    So why are the environmentalists against more life?

    ——

    In times of plenty, there is little need for people who’s specialty is managing and allocating scarce resources.

    Mr. Mead is correct when he refers to the environmentalists as Malthusians.

  • michael schrage

    …ad hominem arguments and rhetorical excess rarely lead to affirmative outcomes in arguments over popperian science

    it’s distressing that wigwag wonders if prof mead understands anything (anything!?) about modern science at all….

    the presumptuousness, tendentiousness and arrogance of that statement requires no elaboration…

    but what really galls me is this sentence:
    “It looks like the climatologists are the only mature people in the room.”

    if there is a single takeaway from the climategate 1&2 emails, it’s that – by their own words – one of the most critical research subunits in climatology is revealed as anything but ‘professional’ or ‘mature…

    even if we give the benefit of every doubt that deceptive, misleading, dismissive and obnoxious climatologists were doing ‘good’ or even ‘great’ science, the communications themselves reveal that ‘maturity’ ain’t a brand attribute of that community….

    unfortunately, when one confronts the unhappy possibility that ‘good scientists’ can be ‘less than honorable people,’ the whole ‘peer review’ handwaving becomes an invitation to skepticism rather than the end of the argument….

    speaking as someone who has sat in on more than a few ‘peer reviews’ in highly technical disciplines (and has contributed to peer reviewed journals and publishers), i know that it is a ‘quality control’ mechanism – not a six sigma ‘quality assurance’ process….

    just as there’s a reason that the best scientists i know (and i know nobel laureates) tend to have a thick streak of humility, there’s also a reason why better-than-mediocre scientists of my acquaintance tend to be arrogant…

    so what do we think: that the east anglia and penn state folks are the best climatologists around? or that they are better than mediocre?

    i’ve already formulated my testable, falsifiable hypothesis on that one 🙂

  • Oh it’s hard all right, and repeating the obvious with great nuancedness and all the complicated caveatistics too – but with all the Scientifical hectoring and bumptiousness lLink goes to a brief abstract that says:
    Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling.
    “We have no clue about Co2 balance and just made it up.”
    Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid.
    “Previous use of anonymous numerals (3!) and letters (K!) allowed us to flim-flam a fake (%!) equation-sounding zero-sum analysis.”
    Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability).
    “And more of the same analysissy-stuff only more integrated with more letters and numbers – except the sea and land measurements are totally unfounded, just trust us that they exist.”
    Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
    “That’s it for modern-day Catastrophic Anthropological Globular Warmening! Now can I get $ome more re$earch funding for $omething $uper-$cientificky, plea$e?”

  • guiowen

    “If the community of climatologists is as out of control and wacko as Professor Mead suggested in his November 19th post, how does he explain how the grant that became the basis for Schmittner’s “Science” publication was funded in the first place?”

    Perhaps Schmittner did not tell them (ahead of time) what his eventual conclusions would be? Perhaps his conclusions were a surprise even to him?

  • renminbi

    The paper in Science is likely still assuming too much climate sensitivity to CO2.
    The best science website is :
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    This is providing comprehensive coverage on the leaked E-mails, which are full of astounding admissions against interest.

    When you mix politics and science, what you get is politics.

    One other thing-some of the commenters are
    extremely brightnad it is a pleasure to see their commentary.

  • Charlie

    I’ve been saying all along that the AGW scenarios were grossly overstated. I predict even Schmitter will proved to be overstated.

    Taking Schmitter as accurate, add these two facts:

    One, Warms are preferable. The Medieval and Roman warm periods brought agricultural bounty and thus general prosperity.

    Two, it’s damned hard to increase atmospheric CO2 because there are at least seven realms in our biosphere that greedily gobble it up, including, as Jacksonian Libertarian mentions, some that are self-limiting. That is, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases plant biomass which increases carbon removal from the atmosphere.

    Add these three points together and it is long past time to ignore the green Malthusians. Can we also go after Gore’s ill-gotten gains based on the fraud he’s perpetrated?

  • SamC

    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

  • gs

    Corlyss says:

    …The article is behind a pay wall. Got a link to the entire text?

    IMO our system of intellectual property no longer strikes an equitable balance between public and private interests. Publicly funded unclassified research should be accessible to the public. Fortunately, noteworthy work often is–in practice if not in principle despite, knock on wood, the continuing efforts of overreaching monopolists.

    Enough said.

  • The climategate 1 and 2 revelations confirm unimpressive ‘science’ by unimpressive people who have been part of an extremely impressive, in terms of political impact, campaign for more than 30 years. It was clearly scientifically feeble from the start, and was shown to be so by such as Prof. Lindzen, and yet it has still to be cleared from our political systems, and our educational systems as well. This new paper in Science will help a little in the chipping away of the man-made edifice of climate alarmism. Good.

  • The False God

    I’ve always wondered why scientists seem to focus on “climate change” when the very real dangers of oceanic toxification, topsoil depletion, and desertification are much more pressing, and possibly irreversible if not addressed soon.

    Surely, we deserve the horrors that lie in our future if this is our behavior as a civilization.

  • djaces

    Corlyss says:
    December 2, 2011 at 5:50 am
    @ Wig

    The link only goes to the abstract. The article is behind a pay wall. Got a link to the entire text?

    Try this

    http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf

  • nirmal

    @WigWag

    “By the time the next issue of “Science” is out there will almost certainly be a few letters to the editor from other climatologists commenting on Schmittner’s findings. I would bet the house that none of those letters are venom-filled rants. It’s not academic climatologists who are prone to exaggeration or vituperative commentary; it’s on cable television, in newspapers and in blogs where most of the venom is to be found. It’s not the maturity of climatologists that we should be questioning.”
    Obviously you have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to ClimateGate scandals and the reports of scores of skeptical scientists’ careers that have been ruined for their “heresy”.
    “Climate Science” used to be unglamorous, backwater area of science until about a decade ago. Now they are the most politically powerful among the scientific community in terms of their potential influence on the lives of 7 Billion lives on the planet. Of course, they are as mere human beings have been corrupted by this power.

  • djaces

    I tried to post this earlier and it didn’t appear. If this is a duplicate feel free to delete it.

    Corlyss says:
    December 2, 2011 at 5:50 am

    Try this link

    http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf

  • Pairadimes

    False God:

    Yeah but we can take care of that by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

  • When you mix politics and science, what you get is politics. That works equally well for economics, and certainly the political economics of Scientific research funding.
    Politics is the P-factor where P = poo, as a chocolate milkshake made with poo is still only a poo-milkshake.

  • Dave72

    All scientists are not equal. Most gummint climatologists are hacks and could never hold a real job in industry. Most physicists are brilliant.

  • Engineer

    I think the evidence is very strong that human activity has raised the CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and this has the effect of increasing temperatures. However, the conventional Alarmist position is that this particular chain of cause and effect is the predominant reason for warming. The Skeptic position is generally not one of utter denial, but rather that other causes including fluctations in solar output, the interaction of solar wind and the earth’s magnetic field on cosmic ray induced cloud formation, multi-decadal oscillations in ocean currents, urban heat island effects, land use changes, and measurement flaws due to poor siting of weather stations in non-standard conditions, among other, dilute the effect of man-made greenhouse gasses. Some of these factors are human influenced, but many are beyond our control. The paleo-climactic evidence that suggests that things were warmer 10,000 years ago before man significantly influenced climate certainly suggests to me that the globe’s current issues are hardly unprecedented.

  • stas peterson

    Overlooked in all this pseudo-climatology blather is that a lot of green Malthusians fill their luxurious rice bowls, scaring the bejesus out of the rubes, even if they don’t know a thing about which they blather.

    But this is nothing new. PT Barnum always advertised ” Never give a sucker an even break!!” and of course, “This way to the Egress!”

    As a trained Scientist I was willing to concede the territory to the “Experts” in the Field until I investigated it, myself.

    There is precious little Science there. There sis precious little Climate data, on which to base any climatology.

    What there is, is historical weather data accurate to perhaps a single degree, stretched and contorted and used to make assumptions when used at the third third decimal place. It is well below the NOISE level, and of little significance.

    Astronomer Hansen, despite his politics, has proposed the only serious Climate experiment,other than Dr. Svensgard’s work.

    Which is a calorimeter measure of the Heat in the Oceans, to see if it is accumulating. The Buoy system deployed in the past decade can finally answer that question. There is no Heat gain in the oceans. There for there is no accumulating CAGW, in response to a trivial increase in the non-toxic, trace gas necessary to Life, despite the Diogenic and Quixotic search of Kevin Trendbert for the unlooked depths at sub 2000 meters.

    If anything th Ocean may be cooling slightly. The feared “rising seas” have been rising ever more slowly for a few thousand years, and are actually starting to fall, as a result.

    CAGW is nonsense and no more scientific than Lysenkoism or Mesmerism.

  • Actually, the assumptions of this study are identical to the assumptions of every other IPCC study, as it is based on model projections (or hindcasts) of the standard IPCC GCMs (General Circulation Models).

    These model all ASSUME that variation in solar activity has 1/14th the impact on climate as CO2. They don’t demonstrate it. They don’t find this result. They ASSUME it. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Properly account solar-magnetic forcing and the warming that gets attributed to CO2 falls a concomitant amount, so that the implied climate sensitivity becomes almost certainly less than one. That is, climate feedback effects are almost certainly negative, dampening rather than amplifying forcings.

    This new paper is fully in line with the IPCC’s current bogus approach, which is how it got published. Given the lack of 21st century warming, the IPCC needs to reduce its predictions of warming to a level it can claim has not been falsified.

    THAT is what this paper is about. It is trying to maintain the plausibility of the IPCC’s bogus assumptions. It is most certainly NOT challenging those assumptions.

  • teapartydoc

    The scientific journals I am most exposed to are in medicine, which can be said to remain an art, however we use statistical methods and critical thinking, and do some half-way decent study design in them. People quote them all the time. Fact is, if you spend twenty or thirty years reading them after a while you realize that most of what you expose yourself to when you read them is pure [substance of no value]. Very few articles get quoted even a year or two after being published. You could easily throw away ninety percent or more of every journal and not have had an adverse impact on the world of knowledge. One reason for this is the complexity of the subject matter. The climate is equally or possibly even more complex, and it must be immensely more difficult to establish a base of knowledge about it because of an inability to keep any variables constant while studying others. I would imagine that the subject would prove even more amenable to the production of [substance of little value] than is medicine. Thus I find the diatribes of this Mr. Wig-Wag quite laughable.

  • Syl

    More important than the content in this paper (which, of course, is subject to scrutiny and verification/validation by others just as any other paper should be) is the fact that it was published at all!

    A couple of years ago this paper wouldn’t have gotten past the gatekeepers. Now, perhaps as well, more scientists are willing to really scrutinize the current state of climate science.

    It does seem to me that most are missing this point. Even tiny cracks are allowed in the climate change dyke now.

  • FrancisChalk

    To understand why climate scientists, their professional publications, and the green movement (and all its casual supporters) act as they do, you need only to understand the Marxist term “the ends justifies the means.” At its core Environmentalism is nothing more that Socialism with its main objective the destruction of Capitalism and the freedoms derived from it. If you understand this, then absolutely every action taken by the Environmental Movement and its supporters (the media, leftist politicians, academics, etc.) makes perfect sense.

  • Barrie in PA

    WigWag says that the Greens are not reliable as scientists largely because of their emotional eco-left biases.
    He is naive to overlook the enormous influence they have had on the IPCC’s publications from early on.
    The IPCC lied when it claimed stringent peer review guided all their predictions, which are still heavily political and socialist ‘Third World’ aid motivated, as you’d expect from the UN.
    Wigwag needs to lift his head out of the lab and science mags and look at how the IPCC’s politics have corrupted so many money-hungry, pliable and, yes, immature climatologists. Narrowly-trained scientists are not only brains, sometimes they are less than their brains, which this 15 year ‘science’ scandal has clearly shown.

  • Corlyss

    @ Frances Chalk

    To understand why climate scientists, their professional publications, and the green movement (and all its casual supporters) act as they do, you need only to understand the Marxist term “the ends justifies the means.” “At its core Environmentalism is nothing more that Socialism with its main objective the destruction of Capitalism and the freedoms derived from it. If you understand this, then absolutely every action taken by the Environmental Movement and its supporters (the media, leftist politicians, academics, etc.) makes perfect sense.”

    Succinct and spot on! Two additions to your analysis:
    1. People looking at modern environmentalists see different aging and tattered ideologies at work behind a “scientific” scrim because a) they’ve always argued that their ideology was strictly “scientific” and b) because their older buzzwords lost their cachet when the Soviet Union collapsed. One ideology is thes seriously Marxist-Anti-Capitalist claptrap. For proof look where the European Marxists fled to when the Soviet Union fell: they burrowed into the Green movement, bringing with them all the political and subversive tools they had used when they were overt Marxists. The other is the Progressiveism whose faith in the ever-increasing state had begun to exhibit signs of dissolution caused by evidence that a bigger state inevitably causes loss of freedom because it can’t realize its ambitions without more control over everyday life, which means less freedom for citizens. It doesn’t matter that the enlarging state always thinks it’s doing what’s best for citizens. I’m sure the Nazis thought that at first too, and then they realized they might obtain absolute power to do what they wanted and that became an end in itself.

    2) Ben Wattenberg in his stimulating political autobiography, Fighting Words, recounts an incident when he was still a nominal Democrat back in the 70s. He was invited to appear on a TV program with Paul Ehrlich, one of the founding Malthusians and tireless preacher of “the end is near!” in the environmental movement. Ehrlich has been crying “Doom!” since he 60s for several reasons, all of which are eventually disproven and dismissed as BS by science or politics. After their segment of the show finished, Wattenberg called out Ehrlich’s deliberate lies. Ehrlich, completely unphased, responded wtih something to the effect of, “We have to. It’s called ‘Lying for Justice!'” As you say, the ends justify the means. I don’t know who receives “justice” when Americans are reduced to the same level of poverty and hopelessness as the Bangladeshis or the Rwandans. I have no doubt that Marxists/Greens seek precisely equal outcomes world wide, i.e., the same level of corrosive poverty for everyone except them.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.