Cut the bullshit. Elevate civic knowledge and responsibility.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Don't look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.
It was a bit shocking to see this headline from Forbes.
Even though I'm inclined to agree with the overall message of environmentalists (we need to clean up our act immediately) there are a few things that personally bother me about the public discussion.
I have a difficult time believing that global warming is conclusively anthropogenic. It's certainly possible that carbon output could have an impact on tempurature, but climate is more complicated than we understand, so we can't really draw this conclusion. It also reinforces the narrative that humans are the most special thing on the planet, and have more control than they actually possess. Humans are mere fleas.
The issue is highly-politicized, which significantly distorts the popular discussion and makes it impossible take honest and informed positions. Politics should not drive the conversation, and the public shouldn't take positions based on which side of the aisle they've picked. The health of our environment is much too important to play political games.
Alarmist messaging from environmentalists is counter-productive and has been going on for decades. It's tired and condescending and dishonest. Zealously proclaiming imminent catastrophe has proven to not win minds. Refusing to take a new approach after decades of failure is crazy and extremist. A winning message is rational, neutral, and doesn't pass judgment. If there's nothing but bullshit politics, then there's no compelling reason for moderates to care, which is who needs to be overwhelmingly convinced. Alarmism is doing more harm than good.




Eh, if humans are causing climate change (a better term than Global Warming tbh) then it's pretty much too late to reverse the damage as it's been ignored for too many decades now so the debate is mostly moot.
Though I really don't think you can declare humans are fleas in the effect we can have on the global climate etc, I mean the biggest recorded extinction event is down to human activity and the amount of carbon etc we release into the atmosphere is vastly higher than happens naturally, but as I say it's probably too late to even bother debating it.
My real beef here isn't the science. It's the politicizing of the issue and alarmism. There's little intellectual honesty. Regardless of the cause of climate change, pollution is first and foremost a health issue, and government should be more focused on the welfare of the country than the profits of big business interests.
Yes pollution should be reduced, and that needs the world's governments to agree to various measures to achieve that - if all government policy was actually science-based we'd certainly have a much better world (I mean drug policy would certainly make more sense, and health care for a start)
So it should be noted that this is a forbes article, which is not a science journal, and basically anyone can write for them these days. It was published in 2013. The author is the president of a pro-fossil fuel group called the "Spark of Freedom Foundation"
Additionally, the study sited is by a grad student who focuses on "Engineering Safety and Risk Management" and another at the Vienna University of Economics and Business.
If you read the actual study, you'll see that the title in this Forbes article is entirely bullshit:
This is not a peer reviewed study of "majority of scientists" by any stretch of the imagination. This is a survey of oil and gas industry insiders. It should be also mentioned that the term "peer reviewed" is not a magical term that makes a headline accurate.
Linking this article uncritically here is frankly irresposible and a bad attempt at science reporting.
well there you go then
This is not an attempt at science reporting, especially because this community aims to cultivate productive discourse, not take positions on contentious issues.
It's also not an attempt to disprove any science. I think the science is totally beside the point. My problem is with the arguments presented in the debate. The write-up points out the hazards of asserting 100% rightness on the basis of scientific consenus (which is a logical fallacy), politicizing public discourse, and using counter-productive tactics of alarmism to advocate change. It's not going to happen if these are the tactics that are employed. It's a complete turn-off to moderates and it's why people don't care about it enough to take meaninful action.
It's a travesty that I can't discuss these points without being accused of a stupid climate denier, or a bad reporter, or whatever.
I'm not calling you a stupid climate change denier, but I'm saying its absolutely irresponsible to post a headline (in a community dedicated to "cutting the bullshit" no less) like this without any clear indication that the headline is complete and utter bullshit. This has nothing to do with politics. Its blatantly a false headline with zero intellectual honesty.
You say that politics should not drive the conversation, but the author you uncritically link very clearly has a political agenda and has zero intellectual honesty, unlike the actual scientists who are constantly putting out real data.
I was speaking more generally. I've been accused of being everything under the sun from both sides of the spectrum. It's frustrating to be that misunderstood.
I was taught not to change the title. Maintain integrity, and all that.
I see your point though. Most people will only read the title. A BULLSHIT tag, or any other tag, is another indicator, but is easily missed. Calling bullshit isn't always going to be the angle taken, either, like it's not here.
I experimented with asking questions in the title but that can turn off the audience, so I stopped. I can't think of a one or two word intro to slap in front of the title that clearly defines intent at a glance off-hand. I'll think on it. I'm open to your feedback, of course.
Keeping a headline as-is means that you're endorsing it as fact, not that you're critiquing it or discussing it.
I don't think that should necessarily be the case, but this should have probably been a pitch for original content, rather than a link with write-up in retrospect. Noted.
Good God, I can see it now. Social media will be flooded with people reposting this study without actually reading it and saying "SEE?! CHINA IS TO BLAME" or some iteration of the sort. Forbes should filter articles like these more closely, to avoid dissemination of the actual truth.
I actually found this on Facebook from someone on the far-left who linked it without comment, which I found odd.