Or:



Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.

Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.

The “alarmists” and the “deniers” aren’t really the problem.

The problem is that many reasonable voters find it hard to know whom to believe.

They are turned off by the hypocrisy of Al Gore and the Learjet liberals, the money-grabbing tactics of the third-world-victim industry and the members of the traditional American left who want to raise everyone’s power bill to enforce a lifestyle they find acceptable, all in exchange for nothing.

And a year ago, the lead author of that analysis warned And Rogers continues with his ostensibly prudent ostensible rationality:No, the problem is people like Rogers who dishonestly label those who pay attention to the scientists "alarmists," and attempt to create a false equivalency with the anti-science deniers.Unless they pay attention to the scientists . This isn't about politics, it's about science. The reason people find it hard to know what to believe is because of the dangerous disinformation and misinformation about climate consistently spewed in traditional media sources such as the Washington Post

If you consider such consequences as hundreds of millions of climate refugees, the extinction of 15-40 percent of all species, the loss of 5-20 percent of global GDP, and the worst market failure ever to be nothing. If you consider what the head of the U.S. Pacific Fleet calls the biggest long-term security threat in the region to be nothing. If you consider threats to the global food supply and water supply and sanitation to be nothing. But once again, Rogers reveals himself with gratuitous swipes at his perceived political enemies, Al Gore and "Learjet liberals." Once again, Rogers is changing the subject from the science to his seething political disdain.



You don’t have to buy into the suspiciously precise claim by the Democrats that “there is a 97 percent consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming” blah blah blah to believe there is sufficient cause for the world to take prudent collective action in an effort to avoid pollution-induced problems.

Suspiciously precise only to someone with a political agenda that has nothing to do with the actual science. That 97 percent consensus doesn't come from Democrats or politics, it comes from a detailed analysis of 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics "global climate change" or "global warming ," including invited input from the authors of the studies.

Rogers continues in the same vein, transparently lashing out politically while ignoring the science. His point isn't to be rational or prudent, it is to change the terms of climate change denial. He pretends to acknowledge that there is a problem, while ignoring and blithely dismissing the science, focusing his real emotional energy on his petty political hatreds. The bottom line is that he advocates doing nothing. It would be clever if it weren't so obvious.