You might find this more informative: http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html
At least you have some facts to check. The wsj article is mere hyperbole.
For less bias in the news you read check out newscred.com (no affiliation).
I'm all for cleaning up emissions, but I'm for it because I like the atmosphere to be clean. Fear tactics are what's been driving "green-[A-Za-z]" for a long time and I think it's important to reexamine and do it for the right reasons.
Saying that the last 8 years disproves climate change is like saying that last week was warmer than the week before and therefore we're heading into summer and not into winter.
However, there's probably not too much harm being done in waiting another 10 years before we take this more seriously. 10 years from now if we're having record heatwaves again everywhere, I expect most skeptics will start coming around.
1) the fact that the senator in question benefits from denying global warming does not mean that the global warming pseudo-science is true. Politicians can never be trusted. Period. And you seem to have fallen under the spell of the ad hominem fallacy.
2) Not all skeptics are the same. My skepticism stems from the fact that I do have a solid education in the sciences (unlike the average citizen), not from the fact that I stand to gain from denying global warming.
3) Last but not least: "most to loose" should be "most to lose". Generally speaking, people with a proper sense of spelling are taken more seriously than those who lack it. Maybe I am being pedantic, but if I were reading your CV and you made spelling errors like this, I would think twice before hiring you. This is an observation, not an attack.
and to be clear, i'm not commenting on the issue itself, just the unbalanced coverage from this specific source.
Today the house passed the most important environmental bill in the nation's history, and that gets zero upvotes in favor of this. Really?
http://portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGall...?
This is conspiratorial?
Personally, as soon as I hear someone labeled a "conspiracy theorist" I immediately sympathize with them, though of course that doesn't make their views true.
Edit: replaced "belittling" with "ostracizing" as explained below.
If everybody had studied the global climate in detail and had arrived at the same conclusions, then the fact that everybody thinks the same way would not be dangerous. After all, everybody thinks the Earth is approximately ellipsoidal, and everybody can measure it. However, very few people have studied the climate in detail, and due to this herd movement, any scientist who questions the predictions the most pessimistic arrive to is attacked. This is unacceptable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk
Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson? Seriously.
The point I am trying to make: not at skeptics are born equal. Some are ignorant fools. But others are well-educated and well-trained in the Natural Sciences. Your simplistic view that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists is ideology. You looked at no data. You did not check the assumptions. You did not create any of the climate computer models. You probably did not read any papers on the topic. So, your beliefs stem from where exactly!? This is not an attack. It is an honest question.
BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information.
"The public thinks you have to wait until global warming is proved before you do something, but that's completely ridiculous."
The only thing from this video that suggests Dyson is a skeptic is the title.
It only has zero information if you give it a massively uncharitable and ignorant reading. A climate per se describes a long term pattern of weather in a region. If that pattern changes, by definition, the climate has changed. Hence, "climate change".
Systems, or "dynamical systems" (whatever that means), are privy to two levels of change: one occurs within the system, the other defines the system. In other words, a system's state may change to another state, or the system may change into another system. Got it?
It does not matter either if the number of skeptic scientists is swelling. What matters is the opinion of the scientists who have studied the global climate. The opinion of the experts is the only one that matters. And since the experts may be wrong, their opinion should be viewed as an opinion, not as an absolute truth.
Moreover, I want to stress something important. This is not a game of "us versus them". The truth does not care for such petty human weaknesses. The climate is an extremely difficult problem, and anyone who's too sure of his / her views is probably not a real expert. And scientists should have the freedom to speak what they think, without fearing being attacked by the gullible masses.
I finish with a quote by Robert Oppenheimer:
"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."
