next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi folks, There are a coterie of climate change deniers who (primarily for ideological, or more frequently financial, reasons) would like to keep alive the notion that anthropogenic climate change is still a "debatable" topic. It is interesting (and insightful) that many of these same people, organizations, public relations and ad firms, etc. that constitute the "denial industry" are (in one guise or another) the same as those who were employed by the tobacco industry for years making claims that there was no evidence that smoking was related to lung cancer. They have also borrowed tactics from the Holocaust denial movement, and those who deny the reality of evolution, trying to couch their arguments in pseudo-scientific terms and arguing that they are presenting another perspective on what is still a debatable issue. It is a dreadful and disgraceful tactic. For those who are interested there is an excellent discussion of this movement (with citations and links to many further sources of information) in the Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial Beyond this, or a sober viewing of Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," or an detailed read through the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/), possibly the most extensive, well researched, comprehensive, and credible international scientific study ever undertaken in history (their full report is available on the website), an easily understandable and insightful article on this topic is "The cold truth about climate change" by Joseph Romm published by Salon Magazine: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html We ignore the peril of climate change at the risk of potentially catastrophic consequences. Best wishes, Chris On 1-Jun-08, at 4:24 PM, uhoeger@dal.ca wrote: > Well, > > given the scope of the journal in which this REVIEW article was > published > (Journal American Physicians and Surgeons) it makes me personally > wonder why this review article wasn't published in a journal with a > more > appropriate scope, readership, and referees ....... > And how it made it into this journal since it is not really fitting > into the usual > landscape ............. > Looks to me that it was either turned down by those journals, or > there was > the intention of the authors to fly low under the radar screen to > avoid critical > and qualified discussion ...... > > Same applies to the 31000 American scientists that signed the > petition....... > Who are those people and what is their expertise? > > What I want to say is that it is very easy to get mislead and > blindsided. > Facts can be interpreted in many different ways, and review articles > are not > only a presentation of other people data it's also an interpretation > by a third > person who picked those "references" in the first place. > > Anyway I have a few red flags going up! > > Ulli > >> Very true, David. When faced with a choice between an unsigned, >> abusive >> article on a website and a website which shows a signed 12 page >> review >> article which was published in a scientific journal and is here >> accompanied by 31, 000 signatures of scientists in agreement with >> it, I >> know which to choose. >> >> Lois Codling Christopher Majka - Atlantic Canada Coleoptera http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/atlantic_coleoptera.html c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects