He actually says, “why try?” Isn’t that the thing you’re supposed to never tell your kids? Reminds me of Homer Simpson saying, “Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”

http://akwag.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 10/ building-wind-turbines-out-of-bicycle.html

As for Will, I honestly have a hard time figuring out how someone I once respected, even though I strongly disagreed with him on most optics, has gone so bloody far around the bend.

America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence about climate change

In other words, a more mildly-worded call for the US Chamber of Commerce’s demand for a “Scopes monkey trial for climate science”. Will, pay attention, that stance has big business running away from the Chamber, and the Chamber itself has backed off of it.

I wouldn’t mind a follow-up national research council update on the state of climate science. As Joe points out, that really worked out well for those conservative deniers, didn’t it?

But I’m sure what Will means is a “balanced” National Commission including expert Blog Scientists like Watts and McIntyre, not those outright frauds who belong to the National Academy of Science …

Maybe the author of this blog could chair!

Will is parroting the Republican Party line, that’s all. That whole bunch, including their columnists, is maintaining discipline. Education or picking the right sources is not a factor.

without training in science and reading the good sources, most people, including newspaper colunists, when including their political and economic biases, will get it wrong. is it the people or is it the system? or both?

Someone also needs to tell Will we’ve had a national commission to do essentially the same thing, but with a U.S. focus. It was even commissioned by the Bush Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ U.S._Climate_Change_Science_Program

Deniers don’t like the results from the synthesis reports of either group, so they keep demanding more “commissions”, perhaps ones organized by Senator Inhofe and other hacks.

I look forward to your report on this interview. I suspect even the New Scientist article isn’t quite right. I’m sure you’re aware of this, but Latif was part of the Keenlyside et al. study you covered awhile back, something that ironically also confused Revkin.

http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 05/ 02/ nature-article-on-cooling-confuses-revkin-media-deniers-next-decade-may-see-rapid-warming/

Revkin’s poor 9/22 article appears to have at least removed one very bad error:

“The global average temperature is now only an imperceptible .01 degree Fahrenheit higher than it was in 1999, according to the British meteorology office.”

A basic linear regression reveals about 0.07 C warming per decade from 1999-2008. If we extrapolate 2009, it’s about 0.08 C per decade. And of course, it’s higher with GISS or NOAA, which takes into account Arctic temperatures. Revkin’s article entirely misses the relevancy of looking at single decade, or being naive enough to use the 2+ sigma year of 1998 as a baseline.