There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out

[jpak]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2053521,00.html

The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel's reports are conservative - even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.

Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests.

The scientists fight back, but they always have to make concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that "North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events".

This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the rightwing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists no explanations are required. The world's most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a conspiracy of screaming demagogues.

<more>

[Shoelace]

1. K&R Great article which explains why so many are so confused

about the science of climate change. Recently, I've seen a huge uptick of denier blogs, posts on other forums trying to blame it all on the sun - that seems to be the favorite nitpick subject de jour.

Then there are the paid to post PR shills for Big Oil who are now rampant on many climate science sites.

We have no time to argue. Will people ever really fathom that burning fossil fuels is NOT a good thing? I dunno! One can hope. :banghead:

[july302001]

2. yep -

I agree with you. I've noticed an uptick in all this "climate change skepticism" stuff (nonsense) since mid-March.

Quite a bit of it is tied to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which has been extensively debunked at RealClimate.

[Shoelace]

3. that "Swindle" program was a total joke but

tell that to those who don't know the science. Fortunately, some of the climate scientists themselves (including realclimate.org which I visit quite often) are taking the offensive of late so there's hope that we can somehow get the message out to the gullable ones who might believe that trash!
The rebuttals to that program are darned good so far that I've seen.

My one suggestion is that "Nature" magazine and similar peer reviewed mags/sites who publish papers would at least make their "news" and "comments" section open to the general public for viewing without those huge subscription costs. I think that could effectively quash alot of disinfo out there. We could use all the help we can get!

[razzleberry]

4. these people never heard of the internet?

WTF.

just publish. You don't need anyone's permission
anymore

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. The internet is not "peer reviewed"

A "peer reviewed journal" carries much more weight. As you say, "You don't need anyone's permission anymore," which means any crackpot or crank can "publish" their opinion on the internet.

In many cases, it can be quite difficult to determine how reliable a source is simply by looking at a web page. On the other hand, something found in a peer reviewed journal is generally assumed to have a greater likelihood of validity.