Not much I can add to this, because it so well summarizes the frustration that regular scientists have with the skeptical cabal that glamorizes, accentuates, and exploits the common and vital disagreements that occur in the scientific process. Science is a way of characterizing the truth -- it has a blobby shape, and to refine it to spherical perfection is not an easy thing to do. There will always be bumps, deviations from the idealized unreachable perfection of truth, because we characterize it imperfectly and with a limited viewpoint that cannot and will not exclusively occupy all perspectives.
So... we should soldier on, calling the skeptics on their misleading tactics, while at the same time trying to sympathize with their victims, the conservatives and Tea Party members and mainline Republicans that are unable to think beyond what they are told is true, and what they therefore believe to be true. It is a sad fact that they accept what skeptics tell them is true -- even though it can be shown to be demonstrably false easily -- because of what their mind and traditions and upbringing require them to know is true. And thus do the lies of the Moranoes and the Wattses continue to mislead and cause the gullible to misthink.
Climate scientists lament a nation stuck on the wrong debate
"The IPCC suite of scenarios provide ... a bit too rosy of a picture," says Reilly. "Our study shows that without action, there is virtually no chance that we won't enter very dangerous territory." Even moderate action isn't likely to help.
Follow-up work by these same researchers published this year in MIT's annual Energy and Climate Outlook found that if countries achieve the emission cuts they promised at international climate negotiations, the global temperature would still increase by over 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit), with a significant chance of a 5 degree Celsius rise by century's end."
Not rosy at all, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment