Denial-a-palooza in New York
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 03. 3.08
Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York right now. "Hundreds of the world's leading scientists, economists, and policy analysts will come together to explore key issues overlooked by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming." Even the Wall Street Journal notes that "many in the blogosphere consider global-warming skeptics like those on parade in midtown Manhattan to be at best flat-earthers and, at worst, paid shills for the oil industry."
Desmogblog has put together briefing notes on many of the presenters at the conference, including TreeHugger faves like Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (remember CO2- We call it Life?) and various other resumé-padders and cranks. Full coverage at ::Desmogblog
They can deny all they want. But my concern is how we deal with it in those places that might be hit the hardest. Africa might suffer more from the changing climate than any other continent. Especially because of the lack of social safety nets provided by governments. Is there a solution for Africa when they have so much else to focus on - health, poverty, war and hunger? Or are we caught in a Catch 22 with no sustainable solutions? More on this in my blog at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/solving-the-changing-african-climate-a-catch-22/
Even the Wall Street Journal notes that "many in the blogosphere consider global-warming skeptics
But what the WSJ is saying isn't "these people are nuts or paid shills" they're saying "some people think they're nuts or paid shills". They're very carefully distancing themselves from this opinion by claiming that it's the unwashed bloggers - not real jouirnalists that are saying that.
They could just as well say "a bunch of crazy hippies", with all the respect they have for "the blogosphere".
Would it kill you to wait for the conference to take place before dismissing it? This just makes you look, at best, juvenile, and and at worst intolerant. For a more level-headed treatment, I suggest readers try this article from The New York Times last weekend: "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=global+warming&st=nyt&oref=slogin
In the future you might try using "skeptics" rather than the emotionally over-charged "deniers" to describe people who disagree with you about this particular bit of scientific theory. You'll get taken more seriously.
"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. " (wikipedia).
In other words, a skeptic questions the reliability of an idea that is not backed by scientific evidence. A skeptic is the one who takes the side of the majority of scientific evidence.
The term "denier" is generally used to describe someone who holds an idea that runs contrary to the evidence.
Anyone who has looked at the peer-reviewed scientific evidence knows that it overwhelming supports the anthropogenic climate change theory.
Therefore the term "denier" is a more accurate description of those supporting the conference under discussion here.
For a scientists view of this conference see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/
okay let's try that link again:
http://tinyurl.com/377wce
"Anyone who has looked at the peer-reviewed scientific evidence knows that it overwhelming supports the anthropogenic climate change theory."
So it was wrong to deny the peer-reviewed Mann Hockey Stick of 1999? You know, the one that turned the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events? That the UN based their Third Assessment Report around, then had to walk away from it when it was proven to be, at best, a statistical fraud? You know, the one which Mann refused to release his data or his mathematical models for peer review. That one?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who let that one pass. They couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong, could they?
Check out this video from the "Climate Change Conference" -- it's funny, informative, and um, afterwards, you can deny the believers or believe the deniers.
But don't ignore the planet just because you have a big oil company in your back pocket.
http://video.titantv.com/content/000B00PS/video.aspx
Enjoy!
"So it was wrong to deny the peer-reviewed Mann Hockey Stick of 1999... You know, the one which Mann refused to release his data or his mathematical models for peer review. "
Clearly you have not been following the science very closely. Your information is several years old.
Although the so-called "hockey stick" has gone through some adjustments as the data has been refined, it is still supported by peer-reviewed science. Mann's data has been peer-reviewed and found to be accurate.
see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-27/
The idea that the hockey stick is inaccurate or has been abandoned is one of those urban myths you find on wacky conspiracy websites but not in mainstream peer-reviewed science.