Revkin points out that scientists are constantly debating, but in most cases refining the smaller details. Yet journalists leave out the nuances and the public hears “two sides” of the story, when in truth there tend to be two variants of the same general conclusion.

My additional point in the post is that this phenomenon may being exploited by those with an interest in one outcome or the other. Just repeating that there is ongoing debate creates the kind of uncertainty that kills momentum and creates friction.

We have to let the scientists lead us. It’s really, really important that we start taking real action now.

If you’re on the fence, you have an obligation to get off. Either side is fine, but you need to back up positions that dissent from the real consensus. Either read the facts and become involved in the actual debate. And for the vast majority of the rest of us, let’s avoid the whiplash and let the people who know better advise us on how to save our butts!

Thank you for your comment and generous words. I think we all have opinions that originate from the sources you enumerate. We’re all human, and this is an instinct (or so I understand) that has kept us going strong for many years. So I forgive myself the occasional nasty, destructive barb or pointed comment, even when I write it in this semi-public place.

True critical thought and discourse was said to have occurred in places far, far away from here (Plato and the like). My cynical side suspects it was only the part anyone bothered to write down, as we do tend to blot out the less flattering parts of our human behaviors in our writings.

Still, I took a look at your blog, Wondering!, and it seems like perhaps there are pockets of it left :-) Thanks for your inspiration.

I’ll recall your objectives and ideals next time I have a more base instinct. Leadership, it seems, may not only be a “many to one” phenomenon :-)

Regards,

Tom

It doesn’t mean we all must move forward, nor all agree. I am still seeking disagreements, or alternate views that have some solid basis upon which to disagree or propose an alternate view.

I know several very, very smart people whose views on the topic I wrote about are different than mine — I don’t think their views (or mine) are based on dogma, nor on intellectual laziness, or capacity, or upon the belief that the issues around global warming are some vast conspiracy, or on personal interest.

Instead, I think we honestly see the same thing differently. In several cases, they have cited the arguments I wrote about here, perhaps not from the same source, but the same line of thought. At first, I said “What? You believe what?” then realized that I may have not done sufficient work in understanding why they hold their views. I dismissed their views, at first. That was wrong, and this post is a first attempt at seriously seeking a basis for an alternate view. I didn’t find that basis, but I will keep looking.

Instead after much learning, reading, following and researching their alternate viewpoint, I was left feeling that I was in a hall of mirrors. I questioned both my own knowledge and understanding, and theirs. In at least this case (that I wrote about here), I was not able to find anything tangible or solid to grab on to.

Instead, I found lots of rhetoric, and some statements and arguments that were, in my view, “dressed up” to look like fact, but which didn’t really have anything other than a thinly supported assertion behind them. While there was much denial of what others have said (mostly by recent IPCC findings, lately), there was very little actual information supporting what is true. I am still looking, and will continue to look, critical of both my own views and others’.

@Ann — thanks for your comment. I am not quite sure I understand your view, but I certainly agree that in many cases, arguments from both sides have been presented without context. This may be because of the complexity of the problem; few of the findings of people studying global warming result in out-and-out “facts”; instead, the method, the veracity of the data, the relevance of the finding, the motivations of the researchers, and so on can all be questioned. And they should be; it is how we have come to understand the world around us.

So for those of us left to ponder conclusions such as the IPCC’s recent, which might be summarized as “we’re very sure”, there’s still a certain amount of uncertainty. I do think there’s enough information for curious minds to see and read to come to a conclusion that is consistent, in large part, with the findings that is gradually coming to be accepted as “our best guess as what is true”.

One need not study global warming to critically interpret the various sources of information readily available, and dig a little to get the necessary context, and feel confident that some fundamental findings are reliably true enough for us to decide to act.

I think that global warming cannot be seen only as an environmental issue. Protecting the environment is important, but so is understanding how many other aspects of our life, society, economy, and the decisions we make individually and collectively are increasingly important. That is, we need to make the right choices starting now. We need leadership to help unify and direct us; we need businesses to think for the longer term. We need to listen to the news … and understand it more deeply than is possible from CNN or USA Today. Otherwise, we need to accept the “wisdom of the pack” and accept the prevailing wisdom.

Tom

I think what a lot of the conversation of this theory is missing is context. Yes, given facts are true. In context, they mean things. Since I have better things to do with my time than study global warming (being not a scientist or political celebrity, no one would listen to me anyway), I will accept two global facts:
The earth is warmer than it once was.
Taking care of the environment is greater than a warming planet.

I will continue to read your discussions and readings on the topic.

Questioning and critical thinking have always been important but are more important today than at any time in history — in my opinion.