Tuesday, January 27, 2009

"a must-read book on global warming"

The title of a review of Lawrence Solomon's The Deniers-- by Sterling Burnett in Environment & Climate News...

I haven't read it, but it sounds good!

Burnett calls it "riveting" and says it's the one book he'd recommend (if you were only going to read one book about this topic this year).

Solomon is a Canadian environmental journalist and focuses on the non-scientific tone of the scientific and pseudo-scientific debates on global warming.

About a year ago, Solomon began writing a series of articles for Canada's National Post examining the credentials of, and arguments made by, scientists and economists labeled "deniers" by global warming activists and the media. True to the finest tenets of his profession, Solomon sought the truth concerning whether there was in fact a consensus on the headline-grabbing issue of global warming.

He discovered, contrary to the belief popularized by the mainstream media, dissenting scientists are not rare. There are serious scholars whose views should, but too often do not, inform the scientific and public policy debate concerning global warming. Solomon's columns were important because they brought this message to a wider audience....

Solomon does not attempt to settle the science, show that humans are or are not responsible for the present warming trend, or decide what we can expect the future harms or benefits of continued warming (or cooling) might be. Instead, he simply shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the "consensus" view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible--and often more compelling--than the alarmist point of view....

2 Comments:

At January 27, 2009 at 8:08 PM , Blogger William Lang said...

From what I've read about global warming, I think there's a at least an outside chance the consensus view is incorrect, and global warming is mainly not caused by human activities. I think even the climate scientists acknowledge this; the most recent IPCC report put the confidence level at 90-95% (at the threshold of statistical significance). But it sounds like science is working properly here; if the consensus view turns out to be incorrect, it will be because scientists are able to clarify matters.

 
At January 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

In a vacuum, science ought to work in a way that allows consensus to be over-turned by the evidence. But it seems likely that there is some inertia in the process-- whether because of funding, pride, blindness, and so on.

It reminds me of "transaction" and search costs in economics. For the purpose of modeling, we initially assume that those costs are zero, but the reality is fuzzier than that.

If true, this observation doesn't diminish either science or economics; it just recognizes the limitations of the model/process at hand.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home