Pro-Heathrow demo challenges Carbon Cult killjoys • The Register

There's more than a whiff of snobbery about environmental objections to mass travel.

John Brignell, Number Watch

...Note the ageism contained in the accusation “Others are aging scientists with strong conservative beliefs, motivating them to challenge action on global warming not because they disbelieve its existence, but because they are ideologically opposed to regulation of pollution.” There are two main reasons that so many of us are old:

1. We were trained in the era when all scientists were taught to be sceptics (about everything) rather than believers.
2. We are retired and therefore not subject to blackmail within institutions that rely on handouts from state propaganda machines. Many younger scientists would speak out if they did not live in a climate of fear and the threat of careers without research grants.

It is an even more ludicrous than usual to claim that we are ideologically opposed to the regulation of pollution. Many of us were active in opposing real pollution when it was a problem (your bending author, for example, gave much time and money long ago to the cause of water purity, when our post-war rivers were a disaster area). What we do not accept is that carbon, the basis of all life on earth, is a pollution. [Via Greenie Watch]

Striking a nerve: Washington Post's defense of George Will's climate realism greatly distresses alarmists

Will was, simply, wrong, and dishonestly so. The source he cited reported that total ocean ice has remained more or less stable, but that Northern Hemisphere ice, predicted by global-warming models to shrink, has done so, while Southern Hemisphere ice, about which the models make ambiguous predictions, has grown. Thus Will's claim that the sea-ice figures support his what-me-worry optimism was grossly, obviously, and inexcusably wrong.
...
Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy
UCLA