Featured Reviews
Notes:
I returned to this article about 24 hours after I first read it to take a closer look. This is a re-review: In her critique of the global warming orthodoxy, Debra Saunders connects some embarrassing inconsistencies and glitches in evidence that is used to support climate change theory. Beyond that, this piece falls short of providing a convincing case for global warming skeptics. To point out a few of her own inconsistencies: She quotes David Bellamy as saying in every year since the ... More »
Notes:
For those whose minds remain open to scientific evidence that conflicts with global warming orthodoxy, Debra Saunders presents an overview of the topic that conscientious folk can use to deepen their understanding of the issues. As someone who is convinced that the development of clean energy is a good idea, Saunders, like many others, questions the extreme position that catastrophic climate change is in play.
Notes:
Saunders is a Republican activist and commentator who studied Greek and Latin in college. The article comes across as being from an uninformed partisan without scientific credentials who selectively quotes odd "scientists" who pop up as warming deniers. She uses the odd argument that if 99% of trained scientists agree that human-caused global climate change is a problem, that means they must be wrong.
Notes:
Even an opinion piece should pass the smell test. This one doesn't. When I tried to verify some of the cited facts, I found that they didn't hold water. For instance, "official data" do not show that temperatures have been falling since 1998, although they do show that 1998 was warmer than subsequent years. I couldn't locate a source that said Arctic ice increased in 2002 -- everything I found said the opposite. And has the Global Warming Petition been signed by 31,000 ... More »
More Reviews
Notes:
Insightful opinion about controversies surrounding climate change. The author suggests that scientists and the news media tend to favor the orthodox view that global warming is man-made -- and downplay findings from scientists that defy this position, even when they have reasonable evidence to back their claims. The author presents a fair and thoughtful argument, and cites credible experts and factual to support her points. A very worthwhile read.
Fabrice submitted this story.
Tags 
| Topics | World, Sci/Tech, Politics, Media | Global Warming, Media and Politics, Weather, Science, Ethics in Journalism, Climate Change |
Research
| Search Sites | Google | Yahoo | Technorati | Wikipedia | del.icio.us |
Stats
Editorial
| Submitted by | Submitted by Fabrice Florin - Dec 1, 2008 - 9:26 AM PST |
| Reviewed by | Fabrice Florin (review), Derek Hawkins (review), Louise Auerhahn (review), Dwight Rousu (review), Joe Pallas (review), Walter Cox (review) |
| Edited by | David Fox - Dec 1, 2008 - 12:45 PM PST |
No links yet. Please review this story to add some!
No quotes yet. Please review this story to add some!
Comments
Derek Hawkins wrote:
(See Full Review)
I agree that we need to allow more leeway for the dissenting side of the global warming debate. But that should not mean bending over backwards to give junk science center-stage.
Walter Cox wrote:
(See Full Review)
I have been impressed by the work of Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Dr. Spencer calls himself a "Climate Optimist" and he backs his claim that global warming dangers have been vastly overstated with hard scientific evidence. For those wishing to learn more:
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm?expertId=163
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Joe Pallas wrote:
(See Full Review)
I think human activities are probably influencing the global climate. So I probably approached this piece with a certain bias. If the climate is not changing, then we're all fine. If the climate is changing and we're not the reason, then we may be screwed because the change is not so favorable to us.
Fabrice Florin wrote:
(See Full Review)
I have generally supported a pro-active approach to addressing climate change issues while we can, as common sense suggests it's better to be safe than sorry. However, I am well aware that this is a very complex issue, which will take a long time to fully understand, and am cautious about forming definitive conclusions without sufficient data, particularly predictions based on notoriously unreliable computer models. It also appears that there has been an unfair backlash against some dissenting but thoughtful voices on this topic in recent years -- and I welcome reasonable discussions based on sound research. It usually pays off to keep an open mind about complex phenomena like these, in my experience.