[extropy-chat] anthropogenic-climate-change skeptics in Oz

Brent Neal brentn at freeshell.org
Sat Nov 27 01:23:02 UTC 2004


 (11/26/04 16:15) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>>
>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html?oneclick=true
>> 
>> Most scientists say that global warming is not only real, but is
>> already contributing to extreme droughts, floods and the melting
>> of the polar ice caps. 
>
>Only if you count social scientists, pottery scientists, acting
>scientists, violin scientists, political scientists, and any other
>scientist that knows absolutely nothing about climatology. Even among
>those who do, such, such as those below attending this meeting, say
>that it is at least mostly natural, if not entirely so.

Bullcrap. Go and actually read climatology journals.  There are precious few climatologists who will deny global warming exists. The argument currently (for everyone except left- and right-wing political ideologues with no real education) is which effects and to what extent human influence is affecting the climate.  And, just so that you make no mistake, there is no consensus on what that is. To say that most of them agree that global warming is mostly due to natural causes is either a gross misunderstanding or pure ideology.  Most climatologists (at least, those that are honest) will say that no one can say for sure, because no one knows whether the assumptions they are making are valid or not. 

>
>> But a few scientists still insist the idea is bunk. With the Kyoto 
>> Protocol about to come into force, Melissa Fyfe investigates the
>> doubters, their financial backers and whether they are worth
>> listening to.
>
>Ah, the technique of character assasination. The men who gathered at
>this meeting do not insist that it is bunk, they insist that the idea
>that it is caused by mankind to be bunk. Two entirely different
>conclusions. But I am not surprised that a journalist would bait and
>switch like that...

Personally, I think that investigating potential biases in the results due to funding sources is good journalism. I'm particularly concerned that certain NGOs and governmental agencies are only funding researchers that report politically useful results, to the detriment of the science involved.  I'm doubly concerned about the studies sponsored by the coal industry. To call that character assassination is to completely miss the point.  Good journalism exposes more details about the sides of the issue so that we can make a better-informed judgement for ourselves.  Of course, most people these days consider good journalism that which supports their positions...

Of course, the ideas that we should be searching for renewable, environmentally clean energy sources for sound economic reasons or that we should avoid polluting for the same reason that we avoid dumping our sewers in the streets are equally anathema to all who have chosen to treat this issue as a political football. That, I feel, is both the most amusing and the least intelligent aspect to the whole discussion.  

B


-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list