hell’s handmaiden

Submissions for this carnival were near overwhelming– definitely not a bad thing. Strangely enough, most of them were relevant as well, which is a bit of a miracle. Thank you all for submitting. Largely due to the volume of submissions, I’ve adopted a very streamlined presentation this go-round and I’ve resisted the urge to comment on individual posts. I’ve also resisted the urge the flag my favorites.

Enjoy.

The State of the Nation:
• David Hayes presents The Politics of Good Enough posted at Frozen Toothpaste.

“The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change”, Bob Carter’s frontal assault on the science of global warming, is one of the more cited sources in support of the claim that human caused climate change is nonsense science. I’ve read the piece. This is part VII is a series devoted to its analysis. Part I is a fairly light introduction. Part II digs into Carter’s claim that we have no theory of climate and hence can’t deal with what climate information we do have. In Part III, I addressed Carter’s statements about carbon dioxide. Carter then takes up the issue of general circulation modeling– that is, computer modeling– of global climate, followed by “Is there a consensus?“. Part VI concerns the meaningfulness of ‘global average temperature‘.

Bob Carter published a paper titled “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change”, in which he purports to dismantle the so called ‘alarmist’ science of global warming. Part I is a fairly light introduction. Part II digs into Carter’s claim that we have no theory of climate and hence can’t deal with what climate information we do have. In Part III, I addressed Carter’s statements about carbon dioxide. Carter then takes up the issue of general circulation modeling– that is, computer modeling– of global climate, followed by “Is there a consensus?”

Bob Carter published a paper titled “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change”, in which he purports to dismantle the so called ‘alarmist’ science of global warming. Part I is a fairly light introduction. Part II digs into Carter’s claim that we have no theory of climate and hence can’t deal with what climate information we do have. In Part III, I addressed Carter’s statements about carbon dioxide. Carter then takes up the issue of general circulation modeling– that is, computer modeling– of global climate. That is the subject of Part IV.

Now, “Is there a consensus?”

Foreign Policy is pushing what I can only read as a tragically pie-in-the-sky analysis of world politics in an age of global warming. The point, summarized conveniently by the article’s author, is that “Corrupt, tyrannical governments—not changes in the Earth’s climate—will be to blame for the coming resource wars.” and again, “arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off the hook.”