The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, of which the John Locke Foundation is a member, claims to "educate the public about the science and economics of climate change in an impartial manner."

But the very next sentence in the group's description of itself doesn't sound so impartial: "It was established as a response to the many biased and alarmist claims about human-induced climate change, which are being used to justify calls for intervention and regulation."

Anyway, here's their report.

Comments

[Spag/The CA]

Impartiality as a response to bias claims used to justify calls for intervention and regulation seems to be, well, impartial to me.

Now if they were responding to impartial claims used to justify calls for intervention and regulation, that would support your premise.

[Dave Dobson]

Isn't their statement itself biased against intervention and regulation?

[Ed Cone]

It ignores as well the possibility of any "biased and alarmist" arguments against the actual work of many climate scientists.

That's why it wins today's award for self-serious unintentional hilarity.

[Spag/The CA]

No, the statement qualifies that the calls for intervention and regulation are the result of bias and alarmist claims. Therefore, proposing to be impartial in response does not indicate bias. I.E., the calls are being driven by bias, so let's take an impartial look as to whether they are truly justified.

That doesn't mean they will be, but on the surface I don't see the contradiction.

[Bubba]

"Isn't their statement itself biased against intervention and regulation?"

Must be those damned "fringe scientists" at work again, wouldn't you say Dave?

Regarding the statement itself, isn't it funny how the SCoAGW drum beaters hold such words to a much higher standard of proof than they hold their own hack pieces masquerading as climate change science, or when they trot out their ginned-up climate model studies that present such notoriously stretched numbers on the occasions when they aren't just outright lies?

But we knew that already, didn't we?

And we're never surprised anymore over each new increasingly ludicrous level of nonsense that the True Believers promote here and elsewhere.

The "hilarity" is misdirected here, as usual.

[Dave Dobson]

Imagine that, Bubba's still frothing.

Interestingly enough, even though I didn't read the whole thing, it seems to stipulate early on the reality of a warming world. Most of the articles seem to be reflecting on how warming won't actually cause as many negative effects as the IPCC worries about, and that we'll be able to weather them without drastic economic and policy changes.

I think that's actually pretty far away from Bubba's position, but I'm not sure I understand the philosophical topography between fringe scientists, true believers, up-ginners, and Al Gore.

[Bubba]

"it seems to stipulate early on the reality of a warming world. Most of the articles seem to be reflecting on how warming won't actually cause as many negative effects as the IPCC worries about, and that we'll be able to weather them without drastic economic and policy changes.

I think that's actually pretty far away from Bubba's position."

Good old Dave.....

Paying attention to the factual record has never been one of his strong points.

Perhaps your physician needs to up your Ritalin dosage.

[Dave Dobson]

Not that I want to start all this again, but the first four items in the comment you link to seem to be contradicted by the report Ed links to here, which was my point.

[Coturnix]

Their members are a collection of right wing GW denial think tanks. With their typical Frank-Luntzian rhetorical tricks. Seeking for objective truths and empirical facts is as far from their agenda as one can get.

[Coturnix]

DeSmogBlog

[Bubba]

"Not that I want to start all this again, but the first four items in the comment you link to seem to be contradicted by the report Ed links to here.....'

Only if you conveniently ignore the weight of the evidence and the information that supports my original points, which seems to be standard procedure by those in denial about the basic emptiness of the whole "global warming" scam.

[Fred Gregory]

You want links ?. You can't stand the links !

Everything Is caused By Global Warming

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Newt