Ecologgers, I think we have to analyze the critics of the dominant IPCC view of global warming scientifically. We also have to squarely face the fact that our normative beliefs and our deepest fears influence our interpretations of scientific evidence.
To start, I propose a simple taxonomy of global warming critics. We could divide them into two major groups - contrarians and sceptics. Contrarians can further be divided into informed and uninformed contrarians. I assume that genuine sceptics are also informed. I contrast contrarians and sceptics as follows:- A contrarian sticks to his or her position on a subject against any countervailing evidence. Furthermore, they are not above cherrypicking evidence to suit their pre-existing beliefs. A sceptic, on the other hand (in my taxonomy at least) would be a person who questions evidence and arrives at informed critiques of that evidence. In the climate change debate, there appear to be a lot of contrarians but few definite sceptics. We have a classic UNINFORMED CONTRARIAN here in Canada - Tim Ball, who, sad to say, used to be an instructor at the University of Winnipeg. In common with many contrarians he is retired but describes himself as "emeritus", has been associated with various "smoke screen" lobby groups disguised as Think Tanks, and has not published anything on climate science in at least two decades. His entire lifetime output of peer-reviewed publicaitons is about four. In conversations with colleagues, Dr. Ball's defining characteristic is always that he will stick doggedly to any position he holds, no matter the weight of evidence against him. A more dangerous INFORMED CONTRARIAN would be MIT professor Richard Lintzen, who is a genuine atmospheric scientist. Clearly not an intellect to be trifled with. Yet, a recent article in Outside reveals his contrarian tendencies (go to <http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-1.html>). This extract from the article (admittedly anecdotal) reveals Lindtzen's contrarian tendency - " John M. Wallace, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington who has known Lindzen since their grad-school days in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says Lindzen's challenge to climate-change orthodoxy is driven, in large part, by his inner resistance to backing down. "That is Dick's natural personality?to be somewhat of a contrarian," Wallace says. "He feels he can work the argument and win." " What about genuine sceptics. They are harder to find. But I guess the prominent French scientist, Claude Allegre, would be an example. Allegre was one of 1500 signatories of the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which stressed global warming's "potential risks 15 years ago. He now states that "The cause of this climate change is unknown. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." (see <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3863ff02-802a-23ad-4f5f-53c4aed6ce20>. Clearly, the objections of genuine sceptics need to be treated seriously, and their evidence evaluated. As for contrarians, we need first to ask whether their positions are simply the result of a contrarian personality or some strong preconceived ideas. Then look for some exceedingly selective or poorly informed interpretation of the evidence. Ciaou, Andy Park - University of Winnipeg.
