Perhaps it’s because I’ve been reading How Republicans Hate Science (a book that is actually titled The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney), that I’ve become increasingly irritated by the paucity of logic in the public realm. Why is it that well-documented stupidity is still being printed in the MSM without 72 pt. Zapf Dingbat quotation marks around it?
I just read, in the San Jose Mercury Old News, an op-ed piece by Robert Cohen entitled "Scientific ‘consensus’ on global warming doesn’t exist." You say, "Consider the source." I say, "Does the Merc have stupid editors or are they trying to get gullible people to believe this?" (Take that, Merc. How do you like a false dichotomy?)
Being a Taurus (my sun sign, not my car), I couldn’t help but charge after this big, red cape with an LTE entitled "No Scientific Consensus Sun Will Rise."
Not that they’re likely to publish it. But, here it is, in its entirety, for your reading pleasure:
No Scientific Consensus Sun Will Rise
After reading Robert [not to be confused with Richard] Cohen’s recent op-ed, I suddenly realized that there is no scientific "consensus" that the sun will rise tomorrow. I’m not worried, however, because I realize that there is virtually unanimous agreement among scientists, not only that the sun will rise, but also that it will rise in the east and set in the west. Just as there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that not only is there global warming, but also that humans are the cause of it.
Nor am I worried about destroying our economy and lifestyle to eliminate global warming because that’s a false dichotomy. A more practical question is, "Are you willing to have the economy and your lifestyle destroyed by global warming?"
Perhaps you could have a scientist who’s had a few papers on the subject published in a peer-reviewed journal comment in a future "Another view."
The op-ed piece that precipitated my ire was by Robert Cohen, listed as a "certified consulting meteorologist."
What does Cohen say in his piece? He says that he disagrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued on Feb. 2 and asserts that "consensus in the meteorological community is false." He says that there are inconsistencies in the report, and that some of its conclusions don’t agree with certain observations. He cites climate changes he claims are not consistent with global warming, and he concludes:
Clearly, these changes were not due to human influence. It has yet to be determined whether we are in a warming period which is part of the normal climate cycle. Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?
I have no idea why Robert Cohen thinks that the virtually unanimous agreement of scientists on this issue should be challenged, but I do understand why those in certain quarters would want this published. They would want it published because it puts doubt into the public mind about whether scientists have it right on global warming, and therefore undermines political efforts to address the problem. Political efforts, that is, that might cut into someone’s wealth.
The IPCC represents a broad spectrum of scientists from all over the world and is sponsored by the United Nations. Since the United States is a member and has a say in what the IPCC reports, it tends to be conservative on climate issues. In fact, much of the current findings have come under attack for not being alarmist enough because they don’t include data that the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than thought. This is pertinent to the Mercury News because their headquarters, here in the Bay Area, is not that far above sea level. In fact, if Greenland’s ice sheet were to entirely melt, there is a good chance that their receptionist would be dipping his or her feet in salt water every day at work.
What does the scientific community have to say about the issue? I can quote from Chris Mooney’s book:
[The IPCC’s second report was issued in late 1995.] The report concluded for the first time that amid purely natural factors shaping the climate, humankind’s distinctive fingerprint stuck out. "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate" thanks to emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the IPCC famously stated.
So, who are you going to believe? Robert Cohen or virtually every climate scientist in the world?
I’m going to repeat the poll I did for Logic for Republicans or (Not) Hurting the Troops because this story raises the same question: Do you find Republicans illogical?