Is AGW Losing Support?

You know the luster of Anthropogenic Global Warming is wearing off when even the Washington Post is willing to post an opinion piece that questions the more over-the-top predictions and expresses that there's a problem with labeling climate change skeptics as lunatics, mercenaries in the pay of Big Oil, or anti-science know-nothings.

The howls from the AGW faithful in the comments was deafening. From reading many of them it is apparent they are blinded by the dogma of their new religion, like most fanatics. Many excoriated WaPo for even publishing the editorial, as if the debate (and science) about climate change has been settled and no further discussion is required. All that's required is their faith and no amount of facts, data, or failed predictions will sway them from their belief.

I have to agree with the author of the piece, Ed Rogers, that many of the skeptics are anything but, but are what he calls Prudent Rationals.

“The Prudent Rationals” would be comprised of those whose attitudes comport with something like the following: They are generally respectful of the scientific community and are eager to listen to mainstream scientists and researchers. They want to hear from legitimate experts who acknowledge the variables, the uncertainties and, importantly, the mistakes and errors of climate science so far. This group could support a prudent plan to produce measurable benefits, but only if the plan were truly global in scope and the cost seemed to be proportional to the outcome. The “Prudent Rationals” believe it is reasonable to accept that there are consequences for continually pumping gases into the atmosphere. And it seems right that one generation should leave the planet better than they found it for the next generation. But we need to be realistic about technical science and political science. If we can’t act globally to limit these gases, we should be focusing on local pollution, not on plans that unilaterally wreck our economy and impoverish millions – if not billions – for nothing.

While I don't necessarily agree with his entire premise, I do agree that decisions one way or the other should be based upon logic, uncorrupted data, willingness to admit the failure of one's hypothesis, and open access to all data, methods, algorithms, and other analytical programs and mathematics. That's how science is supposed to work. If all of that is 'locked away' because the science is settled, then it isn't science, but politics. With AGW perhaps it's better to label it Climate Lysenkoism.