Dear Denialists,
For many years now you have loudly and openly argued for a 'real' debate on climate change. Yet, when questioned, it often seems the only debate you seek is one where opinion matters most and where we are asked to assume that opinion has the same legitimacy as expertise. Such 'debate' is then measured by climate change denialists according to an assumed right to reject any information they find personally disruptive (or inconvenient) - thus elevating opinion and personal ideology as the standard for establishing truth. We get it, everyone has a right to their opinion and you in particular just don't like being told what to do. We get it.
Be that as it may, what you don't realize is how productive debate actually works. Contrary to what your kindergarden teachers told you your opinions - that is to say, any potentially uninformed or vested opinions - are more than likely quite irrelevant, if not completely useless.
The 'real' debate about climate science should only take place among people who know how to understand the data and read the articles in which the science is presented. Scientific debate should not include the opinions of Fox News reporters, CEOs of major banks or any other non-scientists who glean their opinions from their favorite talk show hosts or magazines. As an analogy, would you ask your hairdresser to fix your car engine, or would you ask your mechanic to cut your hair? Probably not. So why would anyone ask a businessperson, or a butcher, or supermodel to contribute to any sort of productive and practical debate on climate science? It is inappropriate for the task at hand.
Now, in light of the recent scandal over leaked emails of climate scientists, many climate denialists have rallied and are claiming a victory over the global warming acknowledgers. Climate denialists claim that these emails between a small handful of people is "proof" that the scientific data supporting the notion of human-influenced global warming and dangerous climate change is wrong.
It is true that computer hackers obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. And its true that a handful of researchers seem to have been caught manipulating data and trying to influence public opinion. But how on earth does this disprove global warming??? The Climate Research Unit was not the first group to suggest global warming was a problem, and they aren't even a large enough group to begin to impact the results on all the other studies done by thousands of researchers strongly indicating a crisis in global climate systems.
That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all you fervent climate change denialists to prove me wrong, and now enter full force into the 'real' debate, by asking you a few questions. If you can't address the following questions you just haven't done the homework necessary to weigh in on this recent debate over leaked emails, let alone on the wider debate on climate change:
1. Which studies were compromised by the actions of the Climate Research Unit, and how? be specific. Cite papers and data sets.
2. This supposed scandal involves perhaps a half dozen people, how does it affect the work of the 3,000+ others who’s work make up the broader climate science?
3. How does the actions of these few people affect the scientific data collected before the alleged culprits even graduated from university? Or even the work done before they were born?
4. Of the 30,000+ studies that make up the consensus on global warming, which ones are now in question? Where is your evidence? be specific. Please run through a list of the studies you believe are affected?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment