The Denialists are Wrong on Global Warming Too

[motherwell]

Anyone who wants to get a start on understanding the current state of the global-warming controversy, is advised to check out this article in Salon by Joseph Romm, which starts out by stating that there is not really a "consensus" on global warming -- just "well-tested science and real-world observations." (Yes, dorsai, this means you too.)

The science

Comments

[peaceful_fox]

I've just skimmed your post but I thought you might like to see this New Scientist study of the most common global warming myths from last year:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

If you've already quoted some of this, I didn't see it, and accept my apologies. I'll take a better look when I feel better.

[motherwell]

I cited something from New Scientist, but I don't think it was this. Thanks either way.

[motherwell]

...they start off with a bunch of fearmongering, and only at the end do they make an appeal to reason...

That's probably because the authors are trying to explain complicated subjects to large numbers of non-scientists, and feel (rightly or wrongly) that they need to use a bit of drama to focus attention.

The question is, can you -- or anyone else -- refute what's in their "appeal to reason?" If you can't dispute the facts, refute the logic, or offer alternative credible sources in support of an opposing view, then it really doesn't matter how the article was arranged, does it?

...writers such as this Romm character automatically assume that not buying into the hoopla over global warming equates to wanting endless pollution.

Where does he imply that? And even if he does, we can ignore such insinuations and the main thesis would still stand unrefuted.

I think the global warming hysteria has only two functions...If you can't refute the argument that a) Man-made global warming is happening, and b) it will be a serious threat to

[motherwell]

First you say "there is real science on both sides of the issue;" then you say that funds to do more research to resolve the question you say is unresolved should be diverted elsewhere. In other words, you insist the question hasn't been answred, and you don't want to make any more efforts to answer it. I've never seen such an obvious case of "dodging the issue."

(Also, I don't remember you posting a comparable amount of credible articles in support of the denialist line. All I remember is ONE article about increasing solar radiation, whose thesis is contradicted by multiple sources I cited. Care to refresh my memory?)

They may even both be right to some extent...

In either case, global warming is happening (as the denialists themselves have changed their tune to admit), therefore it is a potential threat to our environment, therefore we need to take action to counter it. And sharply reducing our use of fossil-fuels remains a necessary response.

...this planet exists entirely within the climate system of the Sun, and we have

[peaceful_fox]

Really quite a good post. It's good enough that I am going to add it to my "memories" section of LJ which I don't use that often because I am picky about what posts to link there! I don't have much to say other that I will point folks to it if they want a comprehensive post on climate change.

[motherwell]

Thanks! If you liked this one, you'll LOVE the one about John McCain's new supporters and their plans for Israel.

[peaceful_fox]

Uh oh. I am starting to get VERY nervous about this race.

[motherwell]

And I'm getting nervous about your icons. I mean, a marching windup eye? Whassup widdat? Is that the latest surveilance technology? Does it need a warrant?