RE: Melanie Phillips, global warming, and a strange inconsistency

WARNING -- RANT COMING

If I read a statement, I do not first inquire about the author's politics
before forming an opinion of that statement. I don't know about the rest of
Melanie Phillips' article -- I will try to read it -- but her statement about
"a new stick with which to beat western capitalism, America, and
globalization." is, it seems to me, right on. I know some far-out
conservatives who claim there is no science at all in the global warming
area, which of course isn't so, and the Phillips' statement I saw does not
say. She just says it was "suborned" -- used in the service of a lie.

I deplore the fact that the whole global warming issue has become a
liberal/conservative issue. It's not, and shouldn't be. If someone whose
general social and political policies I disagree with makes a single
statement I agree with, does that change my attitude toward social and
political policies? Of course not. Questioning the "war on CO2" does not
make me a socio-political conservative. Even if I turn out to be wrong, it
doesn't affect my politics. Another example: in my opinion, the Bush
administration is on the right track regarding arsenic in water and on the
wrong track regarding oil drilling in the ANWR. Both opinions are based on
my views of the issue, not on whether I voted for Bush (I didn't) or whether
I am a member of Sierra Club (I am).

<snip>

Are we really observing an anthropogenic climate change or part of the
observed CO2 cycle that greatly predates homo sapiens?
If we limit CO2 production noticeably, even globally, will it make a
difference?
What are the other social, economic, ecological, and physiological side
effects of severe CO2 limitations?
If only the "developed" nations limit CO2 prdouction, will it make a
difference?
If we limit CO2 production and do not limit waste heat production, will it
make a difference?

Enough ranting. Thanks for bearing with it.

Ruth

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com

Neither is true. Rather than take Richard Reeves' word for it, I hunted down and read Phillips 15 April 2001 op-ed piece and about a half-dozen letters to the editor responding to it (3 or 4 agreeing it and a couple agin' it). I did an additional Internet search to read some of Phillips other writing, to try to get a sense for whether she has any education or experience with the hard sciences that would allow her to make independent judgments about some of the pro and con evidence she was pontificating on in the global warming piece. I discovered that she didn't seem to, but that is a provisional judgment, since I wasn't able to find any biographical information, other than the fact that she used to be considered a "liberal" by her crowd, used to write for the liberal newspaper, The Guardian, doesn't like libertarians, considers herself a liberal and progressive in the classical Enlightenment sense, and is considered a reactionary by many "liberals" and a conservative by some "conservatives".

I provided URLs that would allow the interested reader to know what Phillips considers her position to be and would allow the reader to actually read the op-ed piece. I actually like a lot of her politics, but it is clear from the op-ed piece that she is simply parroting a party line she is comfortable with.

Ruth is comfortable agreeing that "The science of global warming has been suborned by politics and ideology. It was hijacked by those who wanted a new stick with which to beat western capitalism, America, and
globalization. It is the green version of the big lie", when it is clear from the rest of her message that she [Ruth] has no understanding of "The science of global warming", being unclear about the role of CO2 and orders of magnitude off on the relative energy inputs to the earth's surface and the atmosphere of the sun and fossil fuel burning and nuclear energy.