Reply to comment

(See P.S. about the logic)

I'm delighted that Andy Revkin dropped in with a link to his article about the Kilimanjaro question (Mike take note) from 2004 in the very mainstream New York Times.

I can see I'm wearing Mike down a little at a time. To wit, he says:
"While I agree that there is some research to indicate that global warming (possibly even anthropogenic warming) is occurring, exaggerations, lies, and politics only force people like me to discount almost everything we hear on the issue."

Now I need to get Mike to be more open to seeing the exaggerations, lies, and politics on this issue that come from his sources. If he's being "forced" to discount almost everything, it is because I have failed to fully persuade him that most scientists are like me, operating from curiosity and not from a political agenda. I need to persuade him that his notion of scientific conspiracies, whether imposed or unwitting, is the product of his political sources. Mike is smart enough to think critically, but, like all of us, he is captive to some extent by his world view.

For instance, Mike's insistence that the mainstream media has not been covering "the other side" is simply false. Revkin's article is but one example. The mainstream scientific media, like American Scientist, continue to provide a full and nonpartisan perspective.

As for "The Debate is Over," I can't think of a less productive statement. The scientific debate is never over. It just moves to new questions. And (of course) political debates never end. If I could get Al Gore's attention about that, I would ask him to rephrase it this way: "The scientific consensus is compelling, and it says we have problems ahead. Although there is more to be discovered, we no longer have time to quibble about details. Let the political debate begin, and let's watch the science carefully to make sure we stay on track."

For people of all political persuasions interested in this issue, I recommend Chris Mooney's upcoming Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming, which I have reviewed for major metropolitan newspapers. When the review is printed, I will post it at http://www.scienceshelf.com/StormWorld.htm where I currently have the publicist's comments.

Mooney's conclusion is far less partisan than his The Republican War On Science. He notes a long history of creative tension between climate scientist empiricists who look for patterns in the data and theoreticians/modelers, who look for underlying principles.

He focuses not anthropogenic global warming, where there is broad consensus, but on the question of what warmer seas will mean for hurricane strength and frequency. The classic battle lines are still there, and it would be a great area to watch from the strictly scientific perspective. But one has to wonder if the current highly politicized environment has replaced creative tension with something much less productive.

Finally, I have had an interesting interchange with another conservative thinker at Chris Mooney's The Intersection. He rightly pointed out that my use of the term "denier" or "denialist" sounds like I am equating him to those who deny the Holocaust. I will stop using that term. He's a doubter, perhaps a megadoubter if I want to pull his chain.

By the same token, I have asked him to drop the argument about "The debate is over." Having viewed the evidence with a skeptical eye, I find the scientific consensus compelling, and I think it raises important political issues. That's where the debate is badly needed.

Fred Bortz
Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com)
and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

P.S.: If some A are B, and C is A, the statement "C is B" is neither true nor false, but inconclusive. That's what I said