Scientific evidence that climate change is under way, is man-made, and is likely to continue happening forms the foundation for an edifice of policy which is intended to transform the world’s carbon-intensive economy into one which no longer spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A lot of money, and many reputations—both academic and political—are involved. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Insightful editorial about the debate over climate change. This article presents fairly the key positions for and against man-made global warming, and also discusses the pros and cons of scientific dissent. It then states the Economist's editorial view that "global warming is a serious threat" -- but that "sceptics should not be silenced." A respectful, well-reasoned argument that's also informative in its own right.
I wish all articles about climate change were as thoughtful as this one. It effectively separates the emotions from the substance of this debate -- and makes some very reasonable points of its own.
There is no doubt that politics and science make uncomfortable bedfellows. Politicians sell certainty. Science lives off doubt. The creation of the Intergovernmental Panel ... More »
Effectively frames the recent disclosure about scientists squashing the climate change debate. Willing to acknowledge that the situation is messy.
This is a well written and informative commentary. The last two paragraphs are the key. In science there are no certainties and a leader can always find a scientist who will support him/her.
I think that this opinion piece argues that regarding the subject of climate change, the stakes are so high that politicians should act in accordance with the positions of the majority of climate scientists, but that dissent should not be stifled because continued scientific argument will sharpen understanding -- which can than further inform policy. But in rating the story I am bothered that I am not certain that I have interpreted the message correctly. The piece strikes me as being too carefully constructed so as not to offend anyone.
Quite a nice editorial which makes a convincing case that scientists should not be silenced because of their willingness to question majority views regarding global warming and its pace on the one hand, and the anthropomorphic theory of global warming on the other. One aspect should always be clarified in such discussions: There are really two debates going on with regard to climate change--the first having to do with whether or not the earth is really warming up and, if so, how quickly this might be happening, and the second centering around the question of whether or not human activity, specifically carbon emissions, might be causing such warming. The reason these two debates are so contentious is that our climate models are ... More »
Reasonable people may still differ regarding the two basic questions noted above. Having witnessed the advent, and demise, of quite a number of apocolyptic futurists during the past 40 years (Cesare Emiliani and Carl Sagan with their concerns about the advent of a new "Ice Age" due to global cooling and Paul Ehrlich with his "Population Bomb" were among them), my tendency is to side more with those who wish to wait and see rather than those who insist that to wait will result in ... More »
Retrieving Comments
