We have been given the "other side of the story" repeatedly over the last decade. First the "other side of the story" was that many people did not think global warming was happening. Then, that many people did not think it was man-made: the possible influence of sunspots was repeatedly pointed to. Now that these two "sides" are completely ruled out by the scientific evidence, we are given a new story: maybe man-made climate change won't be that bad!
There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents, and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about every major point over the same period.
Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy companies:
Science is not done by consensus. What the hell is "climate scientist" anyway. Perhaps you'd like to post some of the solved problems in "climate science". Computer models of the climate are a joke. They don't even take into account clouds.You can't make a model of a problem with thousands of free variables. The evidence at this point is on the side of the sun causing any warming and CO2 rising AFTER warming occurs.
There are two sides to this debate, but the two sides are not similar. One is the scientific consensus of the world's climate scientists, represented in the IPCC reports. The other side is a loose collection of crackpots, dissidents, and astroturfing energy companies. One side has been correct about every major point of contention for the last decade; the other side has been wrong about every major point over the same period.
Rationality and alarm are not mutually exclusive; and the suggestion that those thinkers who are alarmed at the probable consequences of global warming are in the grip of "hysteria" is just name-calling. A more documentable ad-hominem is that the climate change deniers are in the employ of the energy companies:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWa...