It might be too much to ask for Newsweek to abandon its global warming alarmism on the basis of Climategate, but it?s nice to see that the magazine?s editors have decided that the current controversy over global warming science shenanigans merits coverage:
The battle between “alarmists” and “deniers” has taken a huge toll, not just on the reputations of Jones and the other “climategate” scientists. It has also damaged the credibility of climate science itself, and threatened more than a decade of diplomatic efforts to engineer a global reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. The effort, which has kept a forward momentum since the Kyoto meeting in 1997, came to a cold stop in Copenhagen in December. The conference was originally intended to bring the U.S. and China into a global agreement, but produced nothing of substance. Indeed, the climate project bears a striking resemblance to health-care reform in the United States?stalled by a combination of political resistance and hubris.
It?s unfortunate that writer Fred Guterl ignores one key factor imperiling climate alarmism (and health-care reform, for that matter): the public?s recognition that government policies would do more harm than good.
For another take on the future of climate policy, check out Paul Chesser?s public presentation on the topic earlier this week.
