AGW: In Public Campaigning Overdrive

Because the "settled science" has become, well, unsettled.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory but it is also a publicity campaign. Central to that campaign is the claim that the science is entirely settled, hence that anyone who rejects any part of the conclusion is either ignorant or corrupt. The rhetorical strategy that supports that claim, one example of which was discussed in a previous post, consists of blurring the distinctions among the claims used to support the conclusion that unless something is done to sharply reduce world output of CO2, very bad things will happen. Anyone who criticizes any link in the chain is labeled a "denier," with the implication that he denies one or both of the most solidly supported claims—that temperatures are trending up or that humans are in part responsible.

In past posts I have criticized what I regard as the weakest part of the argument, the claim that warming on the scale suggested by the IPCC models would produce large net negative effects. This post deals with a risk if the step before that is seriously wrong, if the models turn out to be much less reliable than their proponents claim."

 

I learned over the years to do two things. One, don't accept things as article of faiths. It's always a good idea to consider a grain of salt. It'll keep your blood below boiling point. Two, don't hitch your ride to glory to a sports team. They only let you down. Becoming a sports fan has permitted me to just enjoy sports for its own sake.