One is from Bjorn Lomborg, a Scandinavian statistician who likes to say things that get him noticed:
the other is from 240 American climatologists:
Do you notice a difference? Lomborg zeroes in on a single unsupported assertion from a popular magazine, Newsweek, and tries to use it to paint all global warming science as scaremongering. But did you notice what he left out? He argues correctly that global warming will result in growing seasons moving north. So we may no longer be able to grow semolina wheat in Kansas anymore. But no worries, says Lomborg, we will be able to grow plenty on newly cleared land in Siberia! Hey Bjorn, did you mention the Kansas farmer? What is he going to grow in 110 degree summers?
The 240 climatologists, meanwhile, mention that a warming Alaska will result in billions of dollars of expenditures to replace exploding pipes and buckled roads. Hey Bjorn, are you going to pay for that? Are you going to pay for the 70 billion in Sandy damage? For you, it was not a hurricane when it made landfall- so obviously all the damage from it is imaginary.
The denialist camp includes both people who think that global warming is a hoax, and those like Lomborg who admit it to be real. But the so called realists do not seem terribly realistic. Their mantra seems to be that for every loser from global warming, there will be a winner. But are any of the winners going to be Americans? No. Can any of the losers move across international borders to live in a country that is not too hot to grow crops in? No.
I am left visualizing Lomborg as a sort of Johnny Cochran of the climate policy world, yelling if the glove don't fit, you got to acquit. Really? With OJ play acting that he can't get the gloves on? And didn't you leave out the fact that gloves shrink when you soak them in blood?
Meanwhile the scientists do their thing, telling the truth, and get very little notice.