>But green insincerity is not about scientific knowledge, and so is
>indifferent to the weight of factual evidence. Instead factoids must
>be mobilised in support of a preconceived idea: that the consumption
>goods of the masses must be held down at all costs.
C'mon James, this is ridiculous. I have no interest in holding down mass consupmtion; I'm a member of the masses, and I like consuming goods & services. I despise hair-shirtism, whether it's coming from a monk or Ralph Nader. The consensus of scientists is that there's a serious problem. On my radio show, you dismissed this by saying that scientists used to believe in eugenics. Yes, they did, but they were refuted by better science. Do you doubt the speed of light or Avogadro's number for the same reason?
I just searched the Guardian website for a correction and couldn't find it. I did find a John Vidal column that assumed the original report was correct <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4379387,00.html>. Couldn't find a correction on Yahoo! news, either (which is where I got the AP story that I posted here). Would you mind giving the text of the correction?
Doug