growing anti-climate change sentiment?
a republican friend of mine says there’s growing anti-climate change sentiment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/
thoughts?
As a direct response to his assertion I would have to say I agree. I think there is a growing anti-climate change sentiment particularly in the popular press. But please take what I’m saying very literally. As for whether anything has changed within the scientific community, is there a growing body of evidence that contradicts previous research? I can say definitely not.
Among peer reviewed science, that is research that has been scrutinized by independent scientists of the related field of study, examined for validity of method, rationale of conclusions, integrity of data, and so on. Among this gold-standard benchmark for science, there is no change. Global Warming is happening, it is accelerating, and it is being caused by man’s activities. We are outside the range of all (well understood) natural variability (internal forcing)(solar cycles, oceanic cycles, El Nino, La Nina, orbital variation, and so on). The only explanation that brings models into alignment with recorded variation is human carbon dioxide emissions (external forcing).
I would have to go through this article carefully, but I can say that The Wall Street Journal has a history of citing “Scientific Studies” or publishing “published” statements from “Scientific panels” or “Committees” that have been shown to come from fossil fuel funded think tanks and unsubstantiated conclusions. The Wall Street Journal publishes far more articles placing the science in doubt than those backing it up with evidence. Saying something has been “published” is not the same as saying it has been “published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” although it certainly sounds that way. I find it to be terribly misleading.
From a journalistic point of view it seems like the right thing to do for the narrative of a Story, providing counterpoint and discussion, but this is not what the data shows. Listen, if you put 40 people in the room you will get 40 opinions. If you put 40 scientists in a room you will get 40 opinions thanks to all those wonderful things that make us all human. The point is, the peer review process is in place to maintain objectivity in research, demonstrating that the data alone supports logical conclusions. Sound scientific conclusion may be born of opinion, but in the end it is not supported by opiniion unlike much of what we see in the popular press.
Here’s what I think is happening. It’s crunch time. We are finally seeing a hard push for legislation demanding carbon reductions and this is prompting the business as usual crowd to up it’s game and pull out all the stops. I think that is what we are seeing as the misrepresentation in the popular press and what the blogosphere is spinning as growing doubt.
Fact is, if we had taken some steps on our own earlier we would not need laws forcing us to reduce emissions, but we did not do enough voluntarily so here we are.
Climate models gave us several scenarios complete with time tables for altering behavior. We are rapidly approaching the end of our window to hold warming to the low end of projections. We have an administration that respects scientific conclusions and is trying to enact legislation in accordance with suggested targets. I think it is really unfortunate that this is being cast as a partisan issue. Politics in this country has really devolved to a point of utter disfunction devoid of reasoned logic. The relentless attempts of politicians to retain positions of power by catering to public opinion instead of fact are going to get us into deeper shit than the selfish pursuit of money (and I don’t think we’ve seen just how deep that hole is yet).
I’ve listened to several lectures contrasting the cost of adaptation (adjusting to the effects) vs. mitigation (changing behavior to prevent the worst changes). There is no contest. The world lacks the resources to maintain our standard of living and adapt. Mitigation is the only choice if we wish to preserve our way of life and develop a more just global society. Unfortunately I think it is very much like knowing you should eat right and exercise to live longer and happier. We all know we should but the message has not been conveyed in such a way as to effect our behavior. It does not take much to get me to the point of seeing this as a futile effort, but I have also met an awful lot of really motivated people that do restore my faith that we can change and prosper.