Here's the other side, the Union of Concerned Scientists at MIT. Now to a layman MIT has a huge amount of cred. They have adopted the CAGW position apparently as a fundamental tenet. Here's their AGW 101 article.
Not much comment necessary here. In my simple mind MIT carries a lot of mass in the science world.
At this early stage of my learning journey, if someone put a gun to my head right now and forced me to give unquestioning support to either side, it'd be the MIT mob and not the Creationists.
An attempt to find a reasonable position for a lay person on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
About this blog
It has been put to me by someone much smarter than my good self that those who question the seriousness of human-induced carbon emissions are likely to be corrupt hacks funded by carbon-emitting industries. At the very least ignorant bigots. I'd assumed that there were two sides to the story.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(40)
-
▼
January
(40)
- Bob Carter
- Popular Mechanics
- Richard Lindzen
- Roger W Cohen
- The Cornwall Alliance
- Roy W Spencer
- Continuous adjustment
- Walter Cunningham
- Tim Lambert
- Trends
- American Physical Society
- Jon Jenkins
- Plan B
- Nature again
- World Climate Report
- Nature
- William M Connolley
- McKitrick paper
- Climate Audit
- Subtotal
- Consensus?
- Source data
- Richard L Smith
- Stunts
- Something unexpected
- Friends of Science
- The Met
- Science Daily
- David Bellamy
- James Annan
- Scientific American
- David Evans
- Joanne Nova
- Don J Easterbrook
- New Scientist
- The benefits
- Denial immoral
- Interference
- MIT
- The first juicy seam
-
▼
January
(40)
No comments:
Post a Comment