Here is the transcript of a little segment of yesterday\’s Fox News Sunday show, when Chris Wallace asked George Will about “climate change”. See if you find it as interesting as I did:
Wallace: …as you heard the President say, climate change accountsfor everything from drought to floods. George? Do you buy it?
Will: No. And neither does science.But I\’m one of those who are called “deniers.” And theimputation is that I deny climate change. It would be impossible tostate with greater precision the opposite of my view, which is that,of course the climate is changing. It\’s always changing. That\’s whatgave us the Medieval Warm Period. That\’s what gave us subsequent tothat for centuries the Little Ice Age. Of course it\’s changing.
Whena politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economicscience, social science says “the debate is over,” you maybe sure of two things. The debate is raging and he\’s losing it. SoI think, frankly, as a policy question, Chris, Holman Jenkins, Kim\’scolleague at the Wall Street Journal put it perfectly: the only question is, how much money are we going to spend? How muchwealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zerodiscernible effect on the environment?
Are “climate deniers” the people – the mouth-breathing Neanderthals if you ask Obama & Co. – who deny the obvious, indisputable reality of man-made climate change (which used to be the obvious, indisputable reality of global warming, until it became clear that the globe has not been warming, which caused them to revise the obvious, indisputable reality to climate change)?
Or are “climate deniers” the people who demand that we believe in man-made climate change – like children had to believe in fairies so Tinkerbell would not die – even when so many scientists say it is a bunch of baloney?
Like I said, the exchange was interesting — which I cannot say for those who think the debate is over and there is just one side to this issue.
They, by contrast, are uninteresting. And, in my opinion, wrong.