Climate Deniers and Flawed Science

From Desmog: In January, a trio of climate science deniers with ties to fossil fuel funding published a flawed paper claiming that models of the social cost of carbon pollution are underestimating CO2’s impact on plants and that carbon pollution may actually be beneficial. This is just one way deniers are trying to undermine federal climate rules, reports Dana Drugmand.

Among the authors is the CATO Institute’s Patrick J. Michaels, whom I met briefly during my visit to interview a CATO spokesperson to gather content for my second book (Is Renewable Really Doable?).  From that interview, “(Many people) believe that the push for a migration from cheap and abundant fossil fuels to more expensive renewable energy can only come about when government support is driven by a Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-prosperity agenda.”

These are gross over-generalizations typical of CATO:

• The support of a Marxist agenda in this country is under 5%, where the support for strong government involvement in protecting our environment is over 70%.

• Fossil fuels are only inexpensive as long as their purveyors don’t have to pay to undo the environmental damage.

• Solar and wind energy are extremely inexpensive and getting more so each month.

Is this likely to end climate deniers’ attacks?  Of course not.