Comments on an Andrew Revkin post

Regarding this post:

1. The description of the post says:

A Republican senator finds hundreds of scientists and studies questioning the consensus over dangerous global warming. Does it matter?

Why yes, it most certainly does matter, since it's constantly suggested that an "overwhelming majority" of scientists believe in dangerous global warming.

I doubt that something like this would ever appear in a Revkin blog post:

A former Democratic vice-president says hundreds of scientists and studies agree with his catastrophic view of climate change. Does it matter?

2. In the post, Revkin says he sees Inhofe's report as "portrait of one corner of the absolutely normal, and combative, arena in which scientific ideas emerge and either thrive or fade."

Would Revkin ever refer to Gore's side as occupying "one corner" of this debate?

3. Here's the money quote from Revkin:

...there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases, and about how fast and far seas will rise as a result.

Of course--the crux of this entire debate is the "extent and pace" of the warming.

If ManBearPig is going to kill us all in upcoming decades, that's one thing; if ManBearPig is going to kill none of us, ever, that's quite another.