Dear A.M. Costa Rica:
This discussion gets so heated that it may also be part of the cause of global warming. (just kidding) The A.M. Costa Rica article couldn’t have come out at a better time then this week.
Unfortunately, too many of us believe what we read in the printed press, the spoken press or from politicians, instead of reading the actual publications on the topic or field. This is a case in point regarding the front page article questioning the legitimacy of global warming.
This article started off by saying, “The much-promoted scientific consensus on human-induced global warming is troubling.” The article was referring to the evidence may not be accurate and is therefore troubling.
From published papers I have read on the subject I feel the real troubling issue is that there is human-induced climate change and we are not really doing anything substantial about it.
The article mentions several different points I would like to respond too. “Science is supposed to be where opposing ideas collide and duke it out with evidence. Much of the global warming research relies on computer models and extrapolation.” There is overwhelming evidence with observations of ongoing actions and past records that have taken place caused by global warming that the models are not even needed to show that. Also there is less duking it out when there is so much compelling evidence in regards to human induced climate change.
According to Scientific America, climate scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers found humans play a role in global warming. Also in another article it was pointed out that 13,926 out of 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1991 to 2012 said human activity is affecting the climate. That’s right, only 24 out of nearly 14,000 peer-reviewed articles reject the scientific consensus that human activity is affecting the climate.
The A.M. Costa Rica article goes on to say, “Then there is the problem of academic publishing. Professors get good marks at their universities when a scientific paper is published. Published papers and books result in promotion and tenure.”
Academic publishing is more about bringing research to the forefront and making it available to others in the field.
The real problem is the force driving the global warming deniers. A couple of articles have been written this week in regards to this subject. Here is a part of those articles.
For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has been underwriting a huge, successful campaign to lie about climate change. Like the tobacco industry before it, energy companies have created a body of pseudoscience. This week, that campaign took a serious body blow, as one of its leading pseudo-scientific voices Wei-Hock Soon was exposed as a liar and a fraud, having accepted 1.2 million dollars to pose as a climate-change skeptic.
According to a report from The New York Times, politicians fighting climate change legislation often cite the work of the scientist, Willie Hock, who is employed by the Smithsonian Institution on a part-time basis. Though he’s often referred to as a “Harvard astrophysicist” on conservative news shows, Soon has never worked for the Ivy League school. His degree is in aerospace engineering.
According to recently released documents, he’s received at least $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies while omitting that connection in the majority of his scientific papers over the past decade. Since 2008, he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 studies, a violation of the guidelines of the journals that released them.
This is par for the course. The Heartland Institute, one of the leading Climate Truther think tanks, put together “58 experts [who] don’t believe global warming is a crisis.”
But a review of those “experts,” found that only three of the 58 actually have any credentials in climatology or atmospheric science. (16 are conservative political pundits, 11 are meteorologists, six are conservative economists, and the rest a hodgepodge.)
Indeed, not only individual scientists, but the entire network of climate denier think tanks is a result of industry funding. ExxonMobil alone has supported the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($2m), Center for Strategic and International Studies ($2.4m), Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy ($1.0m), American Enterprise Institute ($2.8m), and Heritage Foundation ($630k).
I guess I will stick to those academic published articles instead of what comes from the naysayer’s sources, when it comes to this topic.
Responding helps bring down my boiling point when it comes to this heated discussion.