Climate change skeptics are entitled to a snicker and a grin in the wake (or non-wake) of the ice-stuck Akademik Shokalskiy in Antarctica last month. The vessel with scientists, journalists and tourists aboard had shipped off on a merry green tour to witness the inexorable ravages of global warming at the South Pole. Ironical as the situation turned out to be, the plight of the crew and passengers was not that funny when the risks and expense of the international effort to rescue them are taken into account.
But ..... well, yes, it was. Especially in light of the commentary from science journalists and politicians in the last year or so. In remarks to a Netroots Nation gathering in San Jose last June, California Representative Henry Waxman and Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz suggested making fun of climate change skeptics. "These people have to be ridiculed," said Sen. Schatz. What a solid strategy for mustering constructive concern for global warming (dba climate change). Trouble is these congressmen are not alone. With a host of probably well-intentioned researchers, journalists and not well-intentioned environmental radicals, they are broadcasting conclusions from modeling that has not been field tested in accordance with traditional Daubert rules for scientific evidence. (An Inconvenient Burden of Proof?, Harlow, B.E. and R. W. Spencer, 2011.) Among other things to numerous to list right now.
Why don't these guys and their climate change media boosters make an attempt at listening to the growing body of scientists questioning the rate of global warming, looking into the actual effects of greenhouse gases and trying to determine practical strategies to deal with it all. These researchers are not climate change deniers; they're scientists doing what scientists are supposed to do. Be skeptical. They are not looking for the last laugh. Although who would blame them for enjoying their just desserts? The passengers on the Akademik Shokalski were certainly enjoying their dessert after a hot meal in warm cabins with plenty of entertainment for ten days courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.
But ..... well, yes, it was. Especially in light of the commentary from science journalists and politicians in the last year or so. In remarks to a Netroots Nation gathering in San Jose last June, California Representative Henry Waxman and Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz suggested making fun of climate change skeptics. "These people have to be ridiculed," said Sen. Schatz. What a solid strategy for mustering constructive concern for global warming (dba climate change). Trouble is these congressmen are not alone. With a host of probably well-intentioned researchers, journalists and not well-intentioned environmental radicals, they are broadcasting conclusions from modeling that has not been field tested in accordance with traditional Daubert rules for scientific evidence. (An Inconvenient Burden of Proof?, Harlow, B.E. and R. W. Spencer, 2011.) Among other things to numerous to list right now.
Why don't these guys and their climate change media boosters make an attempt at listening to the growing body of scientists questioning the rate of global warming, looking into the actual effects of greenhouse gases and trying to determine practical strategies to deal with it all. These researchers are not climate change deniers; they're scientists doing what scientists are supposed to do. Be skeptical. They are not looking for the last laugh. Although who would blame them for enjoying their just desserts? The passengers on the Akademik Shokalski were certainly enjoying their dessert after a hot meal in warm cabins with plenty of entertainment for ten days courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.
RSS Feed
