I’ve been away from the blog recently working on a number of things, some of them related to U.S. energy and climate policy. Lots to report.
A colleague of mine thought it’d be worth sharing what James Woolsey is up to, and I agree. In two weeks, he’s moderating a “Climate Change Panel Discussion,” on which 3 of 5 invited panelists deny the basic argument that climate change is mostly driven by human activity and will have extremely adverse affects. That basic argument, by the way, is conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the largest peer review body ever convened in the world’s history. I’m especially disappointed that the World Affairs Council is supporting this hackery.
In the meantime – I hope you feel compelled to send the WAC a letter holding them to account for their giving disgraced scientists a platform. Here’s what my colleague sent:
I am totally amazed by the panel selected for the WAC Town Hall Meeting on Climate Change. Of 5 panelists, three are deniers of the adverse effects of climate change and the role of human activities as a driver of such change. Two of the panelists are from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (source of the advertising tag line “Carbon Dioxide: some call it pollution; we call it life” and a third is noted skeptic S. Fred Singer. That WAC lends its name to a panel that gives such prominence to people that ignore the science and reflect the interests of their donors has shaken my respect for the World Affairs Council.
I am distributing the WAC panel list to all my colleagues with the question “What has go wrong with the World Affairs Council.” I hope and expect that most of my contacts will share my disappointment. I expect that many people involved in this critical issue with look at the WAC with a feeling of disappointment and a lose of respect.
— Scott Paul