I'm really bored with endless aggressive arguments between talking heads on TV about climate change. Proper scientists make the case for anthropogenic climate change (i.e. we did it). Then the presenter turns to some unqualified loon (e.g. Nigel Lawson, disastrous Tory Chancellor, degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, who has set up a skeptic thinktank) or a retired professor in a non-climate change subject) and treats them as though they know what they're talking about.
Usually, it's 'global warming is a huge leftwing conspiracy', though the purpose and practicalities are never spelled out. How do you get tens of thousands of socially-awkward nerds to agree to a massive plot?
Anyway, those days should now be over, thanks to the sterling work of Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider of Stanford University, who have published a paper analysing the climate science debate.
Their findings:
1. There isn't a balanced debate to be had, which will be news to, well, news organisations. 97-98% of climate science researchers who actively publish peer-reviewed papers believe on scientific grounds that we've altered the climate through human activity.
2. These researchers have massively more academic credibility and experience than the tiny group who oppose the theory. They publish more, they publish more in peer-reviewed journals and they've been working in the field more.
So there we have it. There's no conspiracy, just a hugely overwhelming amount of data collected by serious scientists on one side, and some ideologically-motivated morons on the other: morons who don't have the courage to submit their ideas to scrutiny by their peers, but prefer to rush to the airwaves.
Let's just get on with mitigation and reduction. Perhaps while we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, the media can wean itself of pointless confrontational arguments and learn a little bit about science.
No comments:
Post a Comment