Register for an account


Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.


Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.


Terms of Engagement

Collide-a-ScapeBy Keith KloorNovember 13, 2009 9:34 AM


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

In their third (and final?) critique of a certain climate blogger, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus explain to their own critics why they don't take on the other side:

The work of holding Republican obstructionists, anti-government extremists, and right-wing conspiracy mongers to task is work for principled conservatives, not liberals. The work of greens and liberals is to challenge the Democratic demagogues, the left-wing bullies, and the Climate McCarthyites who narrow and polarize the debate in ways that make effective policy action all but impossible. If we can hold our own hyper-partisans to account then fair-minded conservatives might do the same.

This is an interesting philosophical position to take, one that I suspect Roger Pielke Jr. agrees with. Personally, I find these terms of engagement too restrictive. In the real world, where perception counts as much (if not more) than reality, I believe that Shellenberger and Nordhaus do themselves no good by hewing so faithfully to the position they laid out above.

3 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.


Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 50%


Already a subscriber? Register or Log In