
The great global warming collapse - gibsonf1
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
======
cgranade
The article opens up with a debunked denialist canard... but it still makes
front page. Why is HN a haven for climate change denialists these days?

~~~
cperciva
_Why is HN a haven for climate change denialists these days?_

I haven't seen many climate change denialists here; I have, on the other hand,
seen lots of climate change _skeptics_. These two are not at all the same
thing.

At my university, I know five faculty members -- a mathematician, a physicist,
a chemist, a biologist, and an economist -- who have privately expressed the
opinion that _given the lack of scientific rigour demonstrated by climate
change researchers, it is impossible to judge whether anthropogenic global
warming exists_.

These are not oil industry patsies; nor are they conspiracy theorists. They
are serious scientists (yes, even including the economist) with concerns about
the scientific process. I don't think any of them would say that anthropogenic
global warming does _not_ exist; only that the research done so far is
seriously lacking.

Not all _skeptics_ are _denialists_.

~~~
cgranade
No, not all are. Just all but a vanishingly small number. For instance, the
article takes the strategy of undermining climate science on a political basis
then claiming it has no scientific credibility. This is a standard denialist
tactic-- a true skeptic would be able to argue based on evidence, not what one
would want to be true. Unfortunately, by publishing that article, the paper in
question basically has declared that they have no interest in actually
evaluating evidence and reporting on it.

------
wglb
This seems more politics than HN worthy.

~~~
vannevar
I agree, it's getting tiresome seeing all these op-ed pieces posted here. HN
is under steady assault now from astroturfing.

