Articles Tagged "Opposing Views"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Monday, November 15th 2010, 3:34 PM EST
"Bring it on" should be the Democrats' response to the new House Republican majority's pledge to hold investigatory hearings on the Obama Administration's environmental policies.
If Republicans want to use an open forum to debunk human-induced global warming and challenge the legitimacy and wisdom of the executive branch to regulate greenhouse gases, go right ahead. Their partisan zeal could very well trigger an embarrassing public backlash.
Democrats should welcome the opportunity for expert witnesses to testify in behalf of the necessity to curb global warming as well as the specific need for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit industrial greenhouse gas emissions. There are articulate environmental scientists (and the Democratic minority will make sure they are on the witness list if the GOP majority won't) who can present in laymen's terms with persuasive documentation the case for President Obama's "green" strategy. These experts need to come to the hearings not just to deliver a positive message with clarity. Under the glare of television cameras, they must be prepared to directly dismantle any global warming deniers' claims advanced at the session, and do so unsolicited if need be.
All the Republican demagoguery in the world won't break down witnesses who know their stuff, have the skills to communicate it in a simple, straightforward way, and possess the temperament not to be rattled by heavy-handed, derisive interrogation.
Monday, November 15th 2010, 6:22 AM EST
I thought long and hard about including this "opposing view" from Bjorn Lomborg, If I had not read the Reply to article: Disputing The Skeptical Environmentalist by Willie Soon, Robert Carter & David Legates
I would have been inclined to have passed up this new article
from The Australian.
Bjorn is promoting his new film "Cool It", and in doing so the media are committed to listen to what he has to say, and that can't be bad can it? The trouble is, Bjorn is a warmist, and when he goes onto say that "Man Made Climate Change" is real, the media portray his side as being a watered down version of ours, simply because he stands up to the conventional view. I have no doubt that there will be a "reply to this article", and I will be looking out for it.
COMMON sense was an early loser in the scorching battle over the reality of man-made global warming.
For nearly 20 years, one group of activists argued in the face of ever-mounting evidence that global warming was a fabrication.
Their opponents, meanwhile, exaggerated the phenomenon's likely impact and, as a consequence, dogmatically fixated on drastic, short-term carbon cuts as the only solution, despite overwhelming evidence such cuts would be cripplingly expensive and woefully ineffective.
This scientific pie fight, characterised by juvenile name-calling, ignoble tactics and intellectual intransigence on both sides, not only left the public confused and scared; it undermined the efforts of the most important organisations working on advancing the science of climate change.
Sunday, November 14th 2010, 3:11 AM EST
I have included this "opposing view" by Robin McKie from the Guardian/Observer as he claims that the "Climategate" scandal is the reason that scientists are unable to convince the world of the reality of climate change. I could not find the real reason in this article, in that, why are scientists unable to convince the world of climate change in this opposing view, and that is SCIENCE!!
Here is part of the article, click source to read more!!
....In other words, all is not lost for climate sciene – though the tasks facing its practitioners should not be underestimated, a point stressed by Professor Trevor Davies, pro-vice-chancellor at the University of East Anglia and a former director of its climate-research unit. "This affair has showed just how difficult it is to get over rational, objective arguments to people who are just not prepared to listen. It is going to be very, very difficult to engage and converse with some of these people."
Nevertheless, climate researchers will have to do just that in the coming years. The one criticism levelled by those groups who investigated and reported on climategate was their concern that its researchers had failed to answer properly the many requests for information that they had received from the public and from climate-change deniers. "We are going to have deal with that. We accept that," said Davies. "In future we will have to be utterly transparent in our undertakings. We will have to go out and engage with the public and justify our stance. That is the real lesson of this affair."
Vicky Pope, head of climate-change advice at the UK Met Office, agreed. "We are currently collecting vast sets of data for our studies of the climate and we are going to have make these available in forms that can be used by interested groups. They can then see for themselves that our analyses are sound and correct. It means a lot of extra work but if that is the price for making sure we demonstrate the dangers posed by climate change then we will have to pay it."
Friday, November 12th 2010, 2:10 AM EST
Not a bad "opposing view" to use from Marc Hendrickx, a consulting geologist at the ABC, the article uses a "what if" approach to what the IPCC would do if they were Physicists, Engineers, Eye Surgeons, and this one was fun...Fruit Pickers: they would obviously pick the cherry.
ABC Unleashed’s favourite psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky once again takes aim at those suggesting it might be prudent to wait for the facts to come in, before turning society on its head. All to combat a climate crisis that has been manufactured up by activists with a poor appreciation of what constitutes a hazard; generally inner city folk.
This time round in a piece titled “Climate change: are you willing to take the risk?” Lewandowsky suggests the level of certainty in climate science is similar to other well founded scientific principles like gravity. He contends that if climate science has the same veracity as evolution for example, who wouldn’t be prepared to sell their children and prepare for climate Armageddon? However, if we apply the same level of uncertainty inherent in climate science concepts to other disciplines it seems there is little to justify Lewandowsky’s level of confidence.
Thursday, November 11th 2010, 3:20 AM EST
Those of you who follow this section will note that I give space to people who have an "opposing view", this time it´s Jerry Jones from the Morning Star. He does not hold back, we, that´s people who are paid by the oil industry, are a bunch of ..... charlatans supposedly with scientific credentials - often in the pay of those profiting from fossil fuels or sympathetic to their cause - to challenge the genuine scientists investigating the subject, making it difficult for the uninitiated to distinguish the science from the pseudoscience.
.......Jerry the time is up, get real, it´s a pity you don´t go onto show the "Science behind global warming", but then there is non to show! GR.
We desperately need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere - and soon. Yet after 20 years of policy debate and protocols almost no progress has been made. It has been "business as usual," with the rate of emissions, if anything, increasing.
If this continues, various feedback effects will come into play, turning what is still a manageable problem into something far beyond our control, perhaps spelling the end of life as we know it.
But hardly anybody with power seems to want to be the first to act, least of all short-termist politicians and business people - especially at this moment of economic crisis.
In fact doing something about it would not only mitigate the environmental consequences of current policies but also help to solve our economic problems.
However, this will not happen under the prevailing neoliberal regime, with governments in the pockets of big business whose bottom line is profit rather than the future of humanity.
Wednesday, November 3rd 2010, 4:12 AM EDT
I have chosen this "opposing view" from Professor Stephan Lewandowsky as he gives the "unknown" factor as the reason why we should panic ourselves in a state of alarm, this is what he goes onto say in this essay.....Uncertainty doesn’t mean we needn’t worry - because uncertainty also means that things could be worse than anticipated.
......I would have thought he could have also said something like using science to establish more facts
, but the dear Prof. wants to be a "Climate Alarmist" rather then a "Climate Realist". Enjoy. GR
Debate about the character of knowledge and uncertainty will continue to be a formative discussion of the 21st century.
What exactly is knowledge?
In today’s complex world, is it possible to know everything about even a relatively small problem? And if complete knowledge eludes us, is partial knowledge still better than ignorance? And what if knowledge is not only partial but also accompanied by uncertainty, as is often the case in science? Does uncertain partial knowledge trump ignorance?
How do we navigate an uncertain world in which most knowledge is partial?
Fortunately, it turns out that we can act on our knowledge with considerable confidence even if it is partial and even if it is accompanied by uncertainty.
Tuesday, November 2nd 2010, 9:42 AM EDT
This is an interesting "opposing view" that demonstrates spurious science at it's worst. I would not be surprised if there is a complete absence of "feedback" mechanisms in this analysis and it probably overlooks solar and ocean variables. I'm sure this meeting by the Geological Society has nothing to do with Mexico COP16 just around the corner, they would not want to panic the representatives of those countries taking part with such terrible news, would they?
The Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming if mankind continues to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, geologists have warned.
A conference organised by the Geological Society in London this week will bring together scientists from around the world to look at how the world coped with climate change in the past.
By studying rock sediments from millions of years ago geologists have been able to model how increases in greenhouse gases led to temperature change and extinction of species.
Professor Jim Zachos, of the University of California, said that 55 million years ago volcanic activity caused around 4,500 gigatons of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere over thousands of years. This caused the planet to warm by 6C (10.8F), forcing whole ecosystems, including early mammals, to adapt, migrate or die out in certain areas.
Prof Zachos said that if the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate, around 5,000 gigatons of greenhouse gases will be released into the atmosphere over a few hundred years. He said this will cause a more rapid temperature rise that at any other time in history and could cause “mass extinction of species”.
Click source to read more!!
Updated below with comments by Andre Bijkerk
Tuesday, October 26th 2010, 12:21 PM EDT
Take part in the comments section. Leo and the gang are more then happy to say hello and welcome, it's good to talk! And yours truly has not been banned (yet), times are a changing
Note: Late news the room number has been changed to 10 instead of 16, we now have a bigger room
Click Source to read FULL report from Leo Hickman and the Guardian slant to our "Climate Fools Day"
Saturday, October 16th 2010, 1:27 PM EDT
This "opposing view" is from the Guardian and concerns what we so called "sceptics" want, it's a pity the Guardian did not ask for a "denier" to come forward and inform their readers exactly what we want, I guess they know best!
Climate sceptics say they want science free of politics, yet their campaigning frames discussion.
Climate change science has had a turbulent year. The media and blogosphere feeding-frenzy after the release of researchers' emails, dubbed "climategate", and the revelation of an embarrassing error in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, unnerved many. Yet, as official investigations concluded that there is no conspiracy by researchers, the published results are robust, and the IPCC sometimes struggles because it employs only a handful of people, controversy has receded. So, responses to the first major post-climategate science story, that a weaker sun may actually warm the Earth's surface, the opposite of what has been accepted until now, can help us understand the legacy of the attacks on climate science
For scientists, it is business as usual. Far from the often alleged conspiracy that scientists ignore the sun and focus only on carbon dioxide in relation to Earth's temperature, the new results use satellite data to show that in the current solar cycle, declining activity is unexpectedly coupled with an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth. Furthermore, despite the paucity of data – only three years' worth from an 11-year solar cycle – this radical challenge to convention was published in the elite journal Nature, because science thrives on novelty and careers are made by being the first with an idea that survives scrutiny. This neatly illustrates why no scientist would hide controversial data.
For the media it is back to business as usual too. The broadsheets and BBC website published careful and informative pieces. The Mail and Express badly mangled the story, with the former running the headline Global warming theory in chaos, even though the lead scientist, Prof Joannah Haigh, explained that the limited impact of solar cycles on Earth's temperature means any reversal of its effects does not put in doubt the climate impacts of carbon dioxide.
Click source to read more
Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 2:16 PM EDT
I noticed this article from Michael Mann the other day from the Washington Post and thought I would put it in as another "opposing view". Michael seems to be under a lot of pressure to justify his position, enjoy!
As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.
Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.