I am sure that everyone has by now heard that Exxon had been funding Climate Change Skeptic groups. No surprise there as far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty sure there are more of the same out there that have yet to be revealed. Now as if on cue, re comments in my last post, I stumble on this, which makes me wonder... are these two isolated incidents, or is it part of a bigger picture?
Also in the comments of my last post, scruffydan states the following:
"In scientific debates (and the global climate change debate is most certainly a scientific one, or at least should be) the only information that matters is that from peer-reviewed journals, anything else isn't published for a reason."
You don't suppose he is referring to the likes of this? (scroll down to last paragraph if you want to save some time)
Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle as per usual.
I also feel the need to clear up one little thing. I am all for cleaning up our environment. We need to reduce pollution in all its forms, of that I have no doubt. I do my part as much as I can. I drive a small fuel efficient vehicle. I recycle everything I possibly can. Although not yet complete, I have been renovating my house to make it more energy efficient. I clean up garbage others leave behind while on my wilderness excursions (my personal pet peeve!). On the matter of man made climate change however, I still have my reservations. Kyoto, I will never support.
3 comments:
I'm with you. I do what I can to reduce my "footprint" and clean up after those who can't be bothered. I rent a 4-cylinder vehicle when I need one and use transit all other times. But I'll be damned if I let some half-a$$ed twit, publishing in the scientific equivalent of MAD Magazine, dictate to me.
I would use transit if it were not for the fact that it takes an hour from my place to work. A drive that takes me less than 10 minutes for me in my car.... "scientific equivalent of MAD Magazine" Thanks for giving me a really good chuckle....lmao
With out reading (and fully understanding) the actual article in Ecological Economics I can't say whether Paul Georgia complaints are valid. The media tends to to a terrible job of summarizing and simplifying scientific journals, and has on many occasions completely misrepresented the papers results and conclusions as seen in this example.
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2308&Itemid=27
Certainly not all peer-reviewed journals are equal.
At the end of the day climate change is to complex an issue for me (or you) to understand, so I place my trust in the methodology that is most likely to produce accurate data, and I strongly believe that that method is the scientific process and the peer-review process. Everything else comes with much more Bias.
Post a Comment