WebSuccess4You.biz

ENVIRONMENT: NEWS,STRATEGIES,METHODS & COMPANIES THAT SAVE & PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT :MAKE MONEY & STOP GLOBAL WARMING !

STOP PUPPY MILLS
Get Tons of Traffic
Visit LinkScout


Aussie Pro Surf

500 FREE CREDITS-given to all New Members
5 urls are allowed for Free Member Accounts
Earn Credits by visiting other member sites
By playing our Online Member Games
From Members Paid to Click Ads
Surfing Bonuses


Page Rank
Table of Contents

10 FREE eBooks by Proven Experts:Stone Evans & Brad Callen: Dotcomology , AdWords Made Easy & SEO Made Easy

REAL Home Based JOBS
& Free Traffic !!!


Buy Leads from OppSeekers

My Blogs



B. AdlandPro FaceBook FriendsWin Social Networking Blog


Web Success Forum

Home Internet Business Articles

Business RSS Feed Articles

ClickBank Articles

Business Resources

Health and Nutrition Information and Opportunities

Health-Nutrition Link Partners

Retail Shopping and Own Your Own Store: Amazon, eBay, ClickBank, MallKing, MyPowerMall, SFIMG, TMI Wireless, Leisure Audio Books.
eBay:How to Make Money on eBay

Automotive-Automobiles

ReferralWare Opportunities:
eBay,Vemma,FreeStoreClub,
Juvio and much more !


Finance,Investments,
Trading & Insurance

Real Estate,Mortgages,Tax Liens

Discount Travel & Photography
Travel to Boston,Mass.
Travel in Russia
Travel in Ukraine
Visit Kiev
Visit Odessa
Visit Yalta
Travel Link Partners

Social Networking Sites

Make Money with Video Games

Internet Marketing Information
& Opportunities:
Strategies,
Companies & Tools !

Internet Advertising

Scam Reports and Performance Reviews

Computer Security Resource Directory

Premier Technology Companies

FREE Web Success
ADVERTISING


Search Partner Directory


Web Traffic Resource Directory

Check out the Spaceship:
WebSuccess4You Traffic Graph

Webmaster Tools Directory

American Public Policy
and
Government Accountability

News Videos,RSS Feeds & Links

The Daily Page- What Happened on this Day In History, Word of the Day

007 Secret File Contest

FREE Music Downloads

Splash Page-3 eBooks & Freebies

Freebie Folder

Arabic Translation

French-Francais Translation

German-Deutsch Translation

Dutch Translation

Italian-Italiano Translation

Japanese Translation

Korean Translation

Portuguese Translation

Russian Translation

Spanish-Espanol Translation

Link Resource Directory

Resources: LinkMachine Partners

Link2Me Link Partners

GotLink Link Partners

BigLinx Link Partners

Bravenet Free Link Directory

Link Market Link Partners

Link Explore Partners

Link Outbreak Partners

Mall Link
Get 11,000 + Links
for Only $59.95 per Month !

LinksMaster.com Partners
Get 8,000 + Links to 2 Sites
for only $20 per Month!


Link Choice Link Partners

LinkDIY Link Partners

Link Exchanged Link Partners

pagerank checker
Directory - cheap web hosting
Exchange Links

InterLinkExchange Partners

LinksLister Link Partners

LinksNow Link Partners

Links Pile

Links Exchange

LinksPro Link Partners

LinksValue Partners

Monsterweblinks
Link Partners


Directory
Link exchange

LinkPartners.com
The Easy Way to Find Link Swap Partners


Links Trade Link Partners

Partners

Free Link Exchange Program - Easily find link partners at SimplyLinking.com

WebFastLinks
JOIN Web Fast Links

Link Exchange Partners

Article Resources

Contact Page

Site Map Index





Check out where your website is ranking in Google, Yahoo! and MSN - FREE with ineedhits!



web metrics


Sierra Club.... Environmental Defense Fund.... Union of Concerned Scientists
Natural Resources Defense Council.... Environmental Defense Center..... The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming- Chairman Congressman Edward Markey,Mass. 7th District
Renewable Energy World...MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS)

The World's Dump: Ocean Garbage From Hawaii to Japan

The Global Disaster Plastic Bags have caused. Save the file and pass it along.

Climate-Change Skeptics Revisited
John P. Holdren
.......5 August 2008

I did not expect that my op-ed in Monday’s Boston Globe, to which the editors gave the title “Convincing the Climate-Change Skeptics”, would actually convince many skeptics. It was aimed more at reinforcing the resolve of the majority in the public and the policy-making community who, betting on the scientific consensus, are ready to move forward with a serious approach to dealing with the problem but are being slowed down by the ill-founded skepticism of a minority. That is why my own title for the piece was “Climate-Change Skeptics Are Dangerously Wrong”.

I am being castigated by many respondents for resorting to reference to authority rather then providing substantive responses to the specific arguments of climate-change deniers. I suggest that this criticism is in part based on a misunderstanding of what is possible within the length constraint of an op-ed piece. The ”top ten” arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate-change science (which arguments include “the sun is doing it”, “Earth’s climate was changing before there were people here”, “climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there”, “the Earth hasn’t been warming since 1998”, “thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban-heat-island effect”, “satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming”) have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

This cannot be done in the 700 words of an op-ed piece. But there are plenty of other forums where it can be…and has been. Persuasive refutations are readily available not only at a high scientific level in (among others) the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ipcc.ch" www.ipcc.ch), the UN Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development ( HYPERLINK "http://www.unfoundation.org/SEG/" www.unfoundation.org/SEG/), the US National Academy of Sciences ( HYPERLINK "http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange" http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange), the US National Center for Atmospheric Research ( HYPERLINK "http://www.ucar.edu" www.ucar.edu), and the UK Meteorological Office ( HYPERLINK "http://www.met-office.gov.uk" www.met-office.gov.uk) -- as well as on a myriad of websites run by serious climatologists (e.g.,  HYPERLINK "http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/" www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/,  HYPERLINK "http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html" stephenschneider.stanford.edu,  HYPERLINK "http://www.realclimate.org" www.realclimate.org ) -- but also in a form boiled down for the intelligent layperson by organizations skilled in scientific communication, such as the BBC ( HYPERLINK "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm" news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm) , the New Scientist magazine ( HYPERLINK "http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths" http://environment.newscientist.com/climatemyths), and the promising new Climate Central organization ( HYPERLINK "http://www.climatecentral.org" www.climatecentral.org) featuring The Weather Channel’s climatologist, Heidi Cullen. Any skeptic who actually wants to know what’s wrong with the standard deniers’ arguments can easily find out.

I provided all the above-mentioned references and more in a longer essay on climate-change skepticism that I wrote in June in response to requests for an explanation of the apparent continuing influence of deniers in the U.S. policy process, and from which I abstracted the op-ed I submitted to The Globe. The references wouldn’t fit within the op-ed word limit without losing too much else that I thought needed to be said.

Even more regrettably, I agreed to a further shortening of what I submitted by the editors at The Globe. I regret agreeing to it because it’s clear (from the responses I’m receiving) that the resulting omission of a sentence about the value of skepticism in science left the impression that I am unaware of the positive role that healthy skepticism has played in the scientific enterprise over the centuries. The omitted sentence was in the middle of a passage that in the original read as follows (omission italicized): All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst. We should really call them “deniers” rather than “skeptics”, because they are giving the venerable tradition of skepticism a bad name. Their arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies.

As my original reference to “the venerable tradition of skepticism” indicates, I am in fact well aware of its valuable and indeed fundamental role in the practice of science. Skeptical views, clearly stated and soundly based, tend to promote healthy re-examination of premises, additional ways to test hypotheses and theories, and refinement of explanations and arguments. And it does happen from time to time – although less often than most casual observers suppose – that views initially held only by skeptics end up overturning and replacing what had been the “mainstream” view. Appreciation for this positive role of scientific skepticism, however, should not lead to uncritical embrace of the deplorable practices characterizing what much of has been masquerading as appropriate skepticism in the climate-science domain. These practices include refusal to acknowledge the existence of large bodies of relevant evidence (such as the proposition that there is no basis for implicating carbon dioxide in the global-average temperature increases observed over the past century); the relentless recycling of arguments in public forums that have long since been persuasively discredited in the scientific literature (such as the attribution of the observed global temperature trends to urban-heat island effects or artifacts of statistical method); the pernicious suggestion that not knowing everything about a phenomenon (such as the role of cloudiness in a warming world) is the same as knowing nothing about it; and the attribution of the views of thousands of members of the mainstream climate-science community to “mass hysteria” or deliberate propagation of a “hoax”.

The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better –and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what’s wrong with them – are what I was inveighing against in the op-ed and will continue to inveigh against. The activities of these folks, whether witting in the case of the scientists or unwitting in the case of their gullible adherents, have nothing to do with respectable scientific skepticism. It also needs to be understood by publics and policy makers alike that, while it can never be guaranteed that a mainstream scientific position will not be overturned by new data or insight, the likelihood of this occurring gets smaller as the size and coherence of the body of data and analysis supporting the mainstream position get larger. The lines of evidence and analysis supporting the mainstream position on climate change are diverse and robust – embracing a huge body of direct measurements by a variety of methods in a wealth of locations on the Earth’s surface and from space, solid understanding of the basic physics governing how energy flow in the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse gases, insights derived from the reconstruction of causes and consequences of millions of years of natural climatic variations, and the results of computer models that are increasingly capable of reproducing the main features of Earth’s climate with and without human influences.

The public and the policy makers who are supposed to act on the public’s behalf are constantly having to make choices in the absence of complete certainty about threats and outcomes. If they are smart, they make those choices on the basis of judgments about probability: Which position is more likely to be right? On climate change, the probability is high that the scientific mainstream is right about its main conclusions, even if all the details are not yet pinned down. Those main conclusions are that climate is changing in ways unusual against the backdrop of natural variability; that human activities are responsible for most of this unusual change; that significant harm to human well-being is already occurring as a result; and that far larger – perhaps catastrophic -- damages will ensue if serious remedial action is not started soon. The rationale for calling the attention of the public and policy makers – the audiences for an op-ed -- to the number, diversity, and distinction of scientists and scientific organizations embracing these conclusions is to inform them of the extent to which this is the view of the most qualified people and groups that have studied the matter. Given the unavoidable fact that most people do not have the training (or the time) to reach an independent conclusion on a scientific matter of this kind, knowing where most of the people who do have the training and who have taken the time come down on the matter is the best guide available on where the public and its policy makers should place their bets. * * * * *

 Truth in advertising: I was one of five Coordinating Lead Authors of the UN Scientific Expert Group report (which had altogether 18 authors from 11 countries), and I am a member of the Board of Climate Central. I have not been involved in the work of the IPCC. Climate Skeptics Revisited / J. Holdren / 8-05-08 / page  PAGE 3




banner