Global warming deniers | Salon News
The science isn’t settled — it’s unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.
“One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term “consensus” in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.”
exactly! love this article! in short, people looking for consensus on *Global Warming is Real* or *Global Warming is a Hoax* would intensify their bias with Climate Debate Daily ;)
thanks for the heads up.
From the technical papers I have read, and the presentations I have sat through, all of which amount to a fairly significant number of hours (~200+) I have come to the conclusion that what is in play by the scientific community in this instance is a severe case of confirmation error: where you look for instances that confirm the scientific model AND FIND THEM. Sure enough, this is exactly what is in play in the discourse I have read, and it is precisely what I see in this article and elsewhere.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t behave in an ecologically responsible fashion: I believe that we should be doing everything in our power to be responsible with the health of the planet, but not for the alleged reasons “scientifically” given. Simply because it’s the right thing to do. It is the most responsible way to behave.
We should leave the planet the way we found it, or as close as possible to it. There is an old cliche in mountain biking: “pack out what you pack in.” Exactly. Do no harm.
Well said, Steve! We need no other reason than “it’s the right thing to do” and if we have that as our main goal, we will have happier, richer lives,and so will the children and children’s children we love.
A couple of observations. First, the author of the article is quite correct in pointing out that the true scientific debate about climate change at the moment has to do with hows/whens/wheres. Not whether (pardon the pun). Yes, the IPCC output seems to grossly understate the problem and much of the most recent science suggests it may already be too late to turn things around.
Second, the problem with journalistic treatments of the subject is that they have an inherent pro/con way of framing reality. To use the excellent example of Climate Debate Daily, note that the media links come first, and that the page is framed in a for/against mode – even visually. Science is a lot messier and a lot more nuanced.
Third, like the rest of the world, the U.S. environmental community (where I earn my bread) is now focused on responses and solutions. Not debate. On that point, the enormity of the crisis is having interesting effects within the scientific community – in terms of the willingness of scientists to set aside the fantasy of objectivity and roll up their sleeves. This is not a huge stretch for conservation science, which has always involved intervention (see http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17481 for an example of issues we’re thinking about in terms of adaptation to climate change). But it will be a bigger challenge for others.