Eric Grover’s recent contribution to BlogActiv (“Global-warming theology threatens freedom and prosperity”) is a useful example of the denial strategy of the few left-over climate sceptics. Its polemic tone (“global-warming theology”, “romantic environmentalists”, Kyoto as a ploy to undermine the US economy, “Taliban global-warming religionists” who are as dangerous as “resurgent Islamic ideology”) is meant to hide the lack of real knowledge about and even interest in the scientific facts behind the climate-energy challenge.

The authors quoted by Grover have been debunked on several occasions by climate experts and some of them have been linked to financial sponsoring by corporations who until recently tried to fight the global warming scientific truths. Therefore let’s give Eric some reading advice:

On Fred Singer’s book read, for instance:

On Mars and other planets warming (implied message: the sun is the culprit, not human emissions):

On the water vapour issue:

And than there is the “global warming is good for mankind” argument which completely proves any lack of understanding of the global warming challenge. On the balancing of negatives and positives of global warming, the IPCC reports are clear. Overall, the effects of global warming will be negative, although indeed some countries might experience some positive developments (I would love great wines in Belgium 🙂 ).

On the idea of geo-engineering climate change solutions, see the following excellent article from the BBC: “Hold back the geo-engineering tide”.

Now, for some of Grover’s more political arguments:

“Climate policies are a risk for our freedom”. Maybe Eric can read the study by eleven ex-generals “National Security and the threat of climate change” which states the following:

“The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” explores ways projected climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states — the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism”.

But then again, maybe these retired army generals have now become” Taliban religionists”?

And, last but not least: climate policies will handicap US economy and “impoverish us all”. A good read here is of course the Stern report and a recent McKinsey study “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How much at what cost?” (Dec 2007). Both studies come to the same conclusions: yes there will be costs but these are much lower than the costs of non-action and mitigation measures will also create new business opportunities which will lower the cost of securing ourselves against a possible climate disaster even more.

So, Eric, a bit more science and a bit less ideology, please 🙂 .

Even your current President and most likely also your future one now accepts the reality of global warming. You might have missed that in your sunny and wonderful California 🙂