Why not cash in?
Eric Heyl's Q&A with meteorologist Joe Bastardi ( ' target='_new'>http://triblive.com/opinion/qanda/6346288-74/global-warming-conference#axzz36j9GekLD"> “Getting the right answer,” ) was fascinating because Bastardi said, in several different ways, that he has no motivation for denying global warming other than the desire to get the right answer. Bastardi also claimed climate scientists who reported global warming for years have their careers invested in this prediction, so they can't let themselves see the truth.
Perhaps Heyl might next interview scientist Richard Muller, who, like Bastardi, denied global warming was happening. However, Muller undertook his own scientific study (paid for by fossil fuel interests) and found, to his surprise, that global warming is real. Muller, a physics researcher, wasn't so invested in his previous denials that he couldn't see the truth. Muller publicly acknowledged his error in 2011.
Heyl might also interview physicist Christopher Keating who offered a $30,000 reward to anyone who proves man-made climate change is not real. If Keating weren't willing to consider the possibility that someone else might have a better analysis, he wouldn't offer such a hefty reward.
If Bastardi's colleagues at the Las Vegas conference on climate change don't apply for this reward, it suggests they lack proof global warming isn't real, and the press should stop listening to them.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.