One of the few causes behind which the Left still can unite is the Kyoto treaty on the reduction of greenhouse gases. After all, the refusal of the U.S. to sign "Kyoto" makes a good reason to kick off anti-American campaigns.
Except... "Old Europe", among others, is failing to reach the reductions agreed upon in the Kyoto treaty:
Canada, Japan and the old 15-member European Union are falling short on their commitments to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol, according to a new UN report on global warming.
Anyway, casual observation tells me that the front line of the "Sign Kyoto" movement is beginning to fall apart, in Europe as well as in the U.S.. The "consensus science" approach comes under increasing fire, for instance in this beautiful piece by Debra J. Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:
THERE IS A MYTH in the American media. It goes like this: The good
scientists agree that global warming is human induced and would be addressed if America ratified the Kyoto global warming pact, while bad heretical scientists question climate models that predict Armageddon because they are venal and corrupted by oil money. ...
Colorado State University professor of atmospheric science William M. Gray, a hurricane authority, announced that he thinks that the biggest contributor to global warming is the fact that "we're coming out of a little ice age," and that the warming trend will end in six to eight years.
Said Gray, sagely: "Consensus science isn't science."
No lie. In fact, it's a bizarre argument. Why do global-warming believers keep pushing this everyone-agrees line when consensus uber alles is so, well, unacademic? The ideal should not be scientists who think in lockstep, but those in the proud mold of the skeptic, who takes a hard look at the data and proves conventional wisdom wrong. ...
On Tuesday, Inhofe issued a statement from Capitol Hill that noted how scientists with independent views don't get on too well with the IPCC. Witness Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who resigned from the IPCC this year because he believed an IPCC top hurricane scientist wrongly linked severe hurricanes to global warming; as a result, he wrote, "the IPCC process has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost."
I've seen this when covering failed educational fads: Curriculum boards chase out the freethinkers, then smugly announce that all the experts agree with them -- so they must be right.
What did Gray think of the Oreskes report? "It shows you how we've all been brainwashed."