Full post here.

Yet:

‘Late last year, a study by Grant Foster (for those in the know, Grant is the climate blogger Tamino) and Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research analyzed temperature data from 1979 to 2010 taking into account the effects of El Ninos, volcanoes, solar variation and found a consistent upward temperature trend of +0.014 per year.’

I’d say to the skeptics, keep an open mind.  I’d say to the scientists and physicists thinking about this:  there are hordes of people who are signing on to your research because of political, politically philosophical, and various other reasons that will drive social and economic change the way they want it to go.  You may be useful to them, for a while.

Addition:  I should add that I recognize a Burkean defense of tradition, stretching across time, and maintaining a robust functioning of our institutions and political freedoms by people entering into arrangements more freely, may be at odds with climate change which requires subsequent changes in our economy, politics, and institutions, often from the top down.   I think this naturally appeals to many modern liberals, some of whom are turning climate change into political opportunism, a cause celebre etc.  Many such people want social change anyways, and will appeal to climate data to implement more equality through a regulated economy, or use this research to steer education and popular sentiment toward their preferred ideals for running our institutions.  For some, its a mere cap upon a desire for greater power and political influence.

For many on the other side, a reasoned skepticism of climate research is not head-in-the-sand ignorance (though it can be), but often a conservative approach to change, what we see as continued maintenance of our political and social institutions as well as a healthy skepticism of the demands being made to change them drastically, according to climate research.  There are ideas, and perhaps, actual natural processes unfolding outside of the scope of current climate research (the typical skeptics’ approach, I grant, and a metaphysical discussion which presents a much more difficult challenge I certainly haven’t met here).  You don’t throw climate research out wholesale, and you don’t sign on blindly.  You try and keep an open mind.

My two cents.

Related On This Site: Jonathan Adler At The Atlantic: ‘A Conservative’s Approach to Combating Climate Change’ …Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘Delusional in Durban’…A Few Links On Environmentalism And Liberty

From Chris Colose: Lindzen On Climate Feedback

From The Access Resource Network: Phillip Johnson’s “Daniel Dennett’s Dangerous Idea’…I don’t think Dinesh D’Souza is up to the job:  Repost-Dinesh D’Souza And Daniel Dennett at Tufts University: Nietzsche’s Prophesy

From Edge: ‘Re: What Makes People Republican? By Jonathan Haidt’…Evolutionary psychology and moral thinking: Franz De Waal At The NY Times 10/17/10: ‘Morals Without God?’…

From Darwinian Conservatism By Larry Arnhart: “Surfing Strauss’s Third Wave of Modernity”