I agree with Ann Althouse that the admissions make the non-skeptics, scientists and media, look bad. By failing to effectively criticize their own arguments for global warming, these non-skeptics have done more harm to the global progress on environmental issues than anything the deniers could say or do. Now we are confronted with a large amount of global science research of questionable scientific quality and set of global priorities which may be unjustified. This is probably a good time to re-examine the priorities advocated in The Skeptical Environmentalist by BjÃ¸rn Lomborg and to re-read the article, The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation, by Bruce McCullough and Ross McKitrick. BjÃ¸rn Lomborg argues that we are spending too much time on th wrong environmental and social issues. Bruce and Ross argue that faulty scientific research is consistently leading us to make poor government policies on major issues. As an example we may have a cleaner environment with more jobs if we can unlock the EPA from its view that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that they need to regulate. The article, Time to Repeal New Source Review? (Up to 30 GW of coal-plant upgrades hangs in the balance), makes the argument that the EPA is holding up a lot of jobs and a cleaner environment for the sake of regulating carbon dioxide.
Original link to Daily Mail article:
Similar article on Instapundit: