About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Skeptic, I don't buy your premise that the basic science has not been done. You apparently would like to see different research and you may have a different definition of "basic" than most climate researchers.
But, more importantly, I think you missed the point of my posting, and I'd like to direct the discussion in that direction.
I'm looking at this in terms of the grassroots community efforts that I am getting involved with and have discussed earlier in the blog. One of the biggest obstacles to the discussion are people who get their "science" from politicians like Inhofe (sorry for the earlier misspelling). They refuse to read books like those I have been reviewing for ten years, but claim to "know" that our recent warming is due to changes in solar radiation.
They point to recent warming on Mars as evidence, but the article I described provides a better explanation for Martian warming.
We need scientific skepticism to keep us honest, but I would like to quote an editorial in the 14 April 2007 New Scientist regarding funding:
Assuming there is no "groupthink" here, or a global scientific conspiracy, the only other occasionally voiced argument is that IPCC scientists have staked so much on greenhouse gases that they are unwilling to brook any alternative. This notion runs so completely counter to what science is about that it is as likely as a global conspiracy.
I reject your claims about conspiracy and your argument about funding, and I see no point in discussing that further. It will degenerate into a pointless "'Tis-true, Ain't-so" non-conversation.
As for "groupthink," I value skeptics precisely because they keep a consensus from becoming a bandwagon. Continue to be skeptical on scientific grounds, but please drop the conspiracy theories and the arguments that scientists need certain results to keep their funding.
At this point, I will drop out of the discussion and let others chime in. I would be particularly interested to hear about other people's experiences in trying to get the nonscientific public to understand the scientific issues and the consequences of inaction on this issue.
Fred Bortz
Science and technology books for young readers and
Science book reviews