Sunday, June 29, 2008

Climate Resistence is futile

Climate Resistance is a blog in denial. They claim to be 'Challenging climate orthodoxy' in their banner line, but the only thing challenging about their latest post is typographic taste.

$IR NI¢HOLA$ $T£RN, the torturers' headline reads.

In the text, they render Sir Nick and waterboard him, all because he wrote the Stern Report over 2005/2006 — and now has the temerity to back those conclusions by launching a carbon credits ratings agency last Wednesday.

Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the UK’s Stern report on climate change, will launch a new carbon credit ratings agency on Wednesday, the first to score carbon credits on a similar basis to that used to rate debt.

Back to the Climate Resistance camp, and from what I can work out, this is the nub of their complaint.

The fact that Stern has been instrumental in creating the idea of mitigation serving that greater good must, by the very standards demanded by the environmental movement, surely raise questions about his profiting from it.

Like, why shouldn't a man back his own impressive prescience? That's how movers shake it. If the guy is wrong about the science backing his commercial bet, then he fails soon enough. If Stern is right, he stands to win large and long by being an early mover. All speed to him.

The weakness in their attack was pinged and laser-pointed out to the Climate Resistance Commanding Editor by guerrilla commenter talisker:

I hate to deprive your charming readers of any opportunity for the foam-flecked ranting they so obviously enjoy, but there is a gaping hole in your argument here.

Stern was not connected to IDEAcarbon/IDEAglobal at the time he wrote his report on climate change, or indeed when he served as chief economist at the World Bank. If he had been, or if his report had been funded in any way by companies that stood to gain from its findings, then there would have been a conflict of interest. As it stands, the comparison with Exxon's funding of climate denialists doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny.

As smear campaigns go, this one is well below even your own usual standards.

27 June 2008 11:23

Nice. talisker's point remains unaddressed by the Commanding Editor; transmission over.

Technorati Tags: ,

No comments: