Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (80118)	6/4/2010 3:21:57 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

'Climate Climbdown' IBD Editorials Posted 06/03/2010 06:54 PM ET Environment: The Royal Society of Britain is rewriting its official position on global warming. We'd say the consensus that man is causing the planet to heat is cracking, but there never was a consensus in the first place. Last December, the 350-year-old Royal Society, considered the top scientific institution in Britain, published the following statement: "It is certain that greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years." But now, just six months later, the Royal Society, under pressure from skeptics, says it will publish a new "guide to the science of climate change" this summer. According to the London Times, "The society has been accused by 43 of its fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." British media were more dismissive. The Times' environment editor labeled the 43 dissidents as "rebels," the Financial Post described their demands to be heard as a "revolt" and the BBC quoted an unnamed Royal Society member who said the skeptics are "strident." The BBC also included this statement from Lord May, previous Royal Society president: "On one hand, you have the entire scientific community, and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots." The name-calling, however, doesn't change the strong point that the 43 dissidents are trying to make — that there's no agreement human activity is warming the earth and that pretending otherwise is scientific fraud. Sure, there exists a large inventory of opinion, an excess of political posturing and an abundance of stubbornness among scientists too invested in global warming speculation to cool off and think clearly. But there's never been a general agreement among scientists that man's greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change. As columnist Gerald Warner wrote last week in the British media, "even the theories of iconic pioneers such as Einstein are routinely revisited by scientists." In language that can come only from the droll British mind, the Telegraph is calling the Royal Society's reassessment a "climate climbdown." Which sounds right to us, and far less dissonant than, say, Al Gore hectoring America about carbon footprints. We look forward to hearing about more climate climbdowns. But that's not to downplay this one. It just might be a watershed moment that prompts a tide of reconsideration. "It would be hard to overestimate the importance of what is happening," says Steve Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com. "The Royal Society occupies a very special place in the scientific firmament, not just in the U.K., but worldwide." Consequently, the summer debate over the new guide for climate change science, Milloy says, "will be watched closely by scientists everywhere, and there can be little doubt that if fellows of the Royal Society are prepared to stick their heads above the parapet, then others will follow their lead." Across the Atlantic, Warner believes the "same realization" the Royal Society is experiencing "is dawning on more and more institutions and individuals, as the anthropogenic global warming scam becomes ever more discredited." If nothing else, we hope the Royal Society's apparent open-mindedness will help move the warming debate out of the political sphere and back into the academic realm, where it belongs. If that doesn't happen, questions about climate change will be met with only political responses that more often than not turn out wrong. .