--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > Yawn. > > Jeffrey Sachs, like his fellow wacko alarmist Al Gore, isn't a scientist. > > 'Nuff said. >
You don't have to be a scientist to report the news, McJerky. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > CLIMATE SCEPTICS ARE RECYCLED CRITICS OF CONTROLS ON TOBACCO AND ACID RAIN > > By Jeffrey Sachs > > The Guardian > > February 19, 2010 > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-s > > ceptics-science > > > > In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last > > December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics > > who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence -- > > and that the science itself is severely flawed. The Intergovernmental Panel > > on Climate Change (IPCC), the global group of experts charged with assessing > > the state of climate science, has been accused of bias. > > > > The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree > > that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of > > dollars to address it? > > > > The fact is that the critics -- who are few in number but aggressive in > > their attacks -- are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 > > years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific > > disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special > > interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill. > > > > Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change > > deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set > > for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their > > misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given > > a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's > > editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit > > the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended > > environmental harm. > > > > Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases > > backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with > > the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung > > cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from > > coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was > > discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were > > causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a > > nasty campaign to discredit that science, too. > > > > Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that > > second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting > > mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate > > change. > > > > What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong > > for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is > > that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is > > companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or > > free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls. > > > > The latest round of attacks involves two episodes. The first was the hacking > > of a climate-change research centre in England. The emails that were stolen > > suggested a lack of forthrightness in the presentation of some climate data. > > Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question > > represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that > > points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change. > > > > The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a > > major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues > > thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But > > errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the > > inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate > > science. > > > > When the emails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers > > at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate > > science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were > > fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants -- a > > ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under > > attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not > > become rich relative to their peers in finance and business. > > > > But then I recalled that this line of attack -- charging a scientific > > conspiracy to drum up "business" for science -- was almost identical to that > > used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they fought > > controls on tobacco, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and > > other dangerous pollutants. In other words, their arguments were systematic > > and contrived, not at all original to the circumstances. > > > > We are witnessing a predictable process by ideologues and right-wing think > > tanks and publications to discredit the scientific process. Their arguments > > have been repeatedly disproved for 30 years -- time after time -- but their > > aggressive methods of public propaganda succeed in causing delay and > > confusion. > > > > Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific > > minds have learned over the course of many decades to "read" the Earth's > > history, in order to understand how the climate system works. They have > > deployed brilliant physics, biology, and instrumentation (such as satellites > > reading detailed features of the Earth's systems) in order to advance our > > understanding. > > > > And the message is clear: large-scale use of oil, coal, and gas is > > threatening the biology and chemistry of the planet. We are fuelling > > dangerous changes in Earth's climate and ocean chemistry, giving rise to > > extreme storms, droughts, and other hazards that will damage the food supply > > and the quality of life of the planet. > > > > The IPCC and the climate scientists are telling us a crucial message. We > > need urgently to transform our energy, transport, food, industrial, and > > construction systems to reduce the dangerous human impact on the climate. It > > is our responsibility to listen, to understand the message, and then to act. > > > > ............ > > > > NHNE's Climate Change Resource Page: > > http://www.nhne.org/tabid/490/Default.aspx > > > > NHNE's 1000 Most Recent Climate Change Articles: > > http://www.nhne.org/tabid/1050/Default.aspx > > > > ------------ > > > > NHNE Wavemaker News List: > > > > Send Some Green Love To NHNE: > > http://www.nhne.org/DONATE/tabid/398/Default.aspx > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > nhnenews-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:nhnenews-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to: > > nhnenews-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:nhnenews-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > To review current posts: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/messages > > http://www.nhne.org/tabid/1044/Default.aspx > > > > NHNE's Mother Ship: > > http://www.nhne.org/ > > > > NHNE on Facebook: > > http://bit.ly/afCLPo > > > > NHNE Pulse: > > http://nhne-pulse.org/ > > > > Integral NHNE: > > http://integralnhne.ning.com/ > > > > Published by David Sunfellow > > NewHeavenNewEarth (NHNE) > > eMail: nhne@ <mailto:nhne%40nhne.org> > > Phone: (928) 257-3200 > > Fax: (815) 642-0117 > > > > P.O. Box 2242 > > Sedona, AZ 86339 > > >
