Image: Illustration by John Cuneo
Many politicians swept into office in the last election in Congress and the state legislatures have shown little understanding of, or respect for, the enterprise of science. A number of the Republicans now in leadership positions in the House of Representatives, for instance, have expressed skepticism about climate change and are planning to use the subpoena powers of their office to put climate scientists on the defensive and portray efforts to curb carbon emissions as a job killer.
The prospect of two years of gridlock and troublemaking is worrying. But even as the nation descends into a period of antiscience populism, there may still be opportunities to begin shaping the science agenda for the next political cycle and perhaps get some useful things done in this one.
Some important measures, of course, are off the table for the near future: cap and trade, a carbon tax, and other comprehensive efforts to deal nationally with global warming. That, however, does not rule out smaller market-based bipartisan efforts that could reduce our energy use and take steps toward a clean energy economy. The next Congress might well consider policies that encourage energy efficiency, incentives for the production of renewable technologies, and other tax-credit measures because these create jobs in many of their home districts.
Meanwhile states and local governments are already marching forward. On November 3 California voters defeated Proposition 23, which would have effectively suspended California’s effort to cut emissions to 1990 levels within 10 years. Proposition 23 was defeated in part by showing that reduced emissions could increase employment. As the world’s eighth-largest economy, California will propagate proven emission-cutting products and policies that will seem commonplace when the nation is ready to take up the issue again.
California isn’t alone. More than 1,000 mayors have signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted renewable electricity standards. The Western Climate Initiative, which includes seven states and four Canadian provinces, has negotiated a regional cap-and-trade program. Scientists are designing energy generation technology for remote regions and communities.
Even dark clouds can have silver linings. Some congressional leaders have already started beating the drums for sweeping investigations of the Obama administration and mainstream science. Climate scientists, in particular, may be summoned before House committees to defend their work. Such hearings could backfire, however, by giving scientists a forum for making their voices heard. A calm, well-reasoned argument, based on firm evidence, could do much to persuade people that climate science is solid and all but universally accepted by legitimate researchers.
Republicans and Democrats may still be able to work together. Incoming freshman representatives may be more sympathetic to scientific issues once they face the task of governing. The need for a record of accomplishments for the 2012 elections may open other doors for legislative change. And the Republican Pledge to America, which advocates transparency in government, leaves open the possibility for progress on protecting whistleblowers who report abuses of science in federal decision making.
President Barack Obama still wields executive power. He can require emissions cuts from motor vehicles, push for developing solar plants on public lands, protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases and move quickly to implement his directive on restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making.
Progress won’t be easy. It will require the persistent and energetic engagement of the scientific community. Many scientists and scientific societies are focused too narrowly on shrinking budgets and spend precious little energy on other science-related issues, even in the face of withering, well-funded attacks. This silence, and the ubiquity of the attacks, has left the public confused. Scientists and citizens must respond with courage and clarity.
This article was originally published with the title The Bright Side of Gridlock.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add Comment"A number of the Republicans now in leadership positions in the House of Representatives, for instance, have expressed skepticism about climate change...".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes maam, and thank God. It's about time. The, predominantly, junk science that has been foist upon the inhabitants of this lovely planet must be opposed and exposed at all costs. And, as the sycophantic 'main stream media' is more than willing to foster furtherance of what is now an, all but, totally discredited group of anecdotal observations and ridiculous postulations, congress may be our only avenue to freedom.
Aside from the discredited U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their 'create a crisis' scientific methodology, let's address the most hackneyed of all the present day crises, CO2 as a 'greenhouse gas'. While it is undeniable that CO2, in part, contributes to the regulation of heat retention and loss, earth's current epoch is in no danger of undergoing a 'greenhouse crisis' The reason, lack of sufficient volcanic activity. While the 'climate change' hacks have now attempted to rig the numbers on volcanic CO2 emissions (stating volcanic emissions produce 200 million tons per year, versus man made emissions of 24 billion), their figures are as ridiculous as were their claims that we were losing 100,000 acres of rain forest per day.
The Iceland eruption in April of last year was equivalent to, at least, a several megaton nuclear release and send an ash cloud over 6 miles into the atmosphere. Combined with the multiple millions of tons of CO2 released, there should have been a lasting and easily measured global effect. Yet, the hacks quickly assured us that this was an insignificant event and brushed it aside. According to their own, long perpetuated, 'science', this eruption should have resulted in, at least, a localized and however minor nuclear winter scenario. Yet, they told us that the eruption had actually resulted in a drop in CO2 emissions, as it had grounded so many airliner flights. This is beyond the pale with regard to logic and reason. The hypocrisy abounds.
The earth is a self cleaning system. To believe mankind is able to 'change the climate' anywhere, much less globally is the height of arrogance and folly. But to believe the climate hacks, we must be even more powerful/destructive yet, as we have also, apparently, caused the exact same temperature rise (possibly 0.2 degrees) on Mars and Pluto.
No, maam, what you tout is neither science or even reasoned conjecture. The Union of Concerned Scientists is merely a criminal front group.
Does Ms Grifo not know:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The skeptical Republicans are planning to use their investigations to arrive that the facts of AGW and "green" energy!
2.She mentions the failure of "Cap & Trade" but is she unaware of the collapse of the US Carbon Market and the vast fraud in what's left of the Euro Carmon Market?
3.She likes tax money subsidies for "renewable technologies" because they will create jobs. Well in those countries with extensive "green" energy systems they have reduced jobs. And the same can be expected in CA or anywhere else. (Try OR where the "Oregonian" reports that Power customers are facing a 14.5% electricity cost increase.)
5."Silver Linings" indeed. Perhaps at congressional hearings scientists can explain the expenditure of 4-5 billions of taxpayer money that is spent annually to promote global warming, and "green" energy subsidies -- all predicated on the unproven theory that CO2 causes warming, and indeed, that it is that tiny portion of anthropogenic co2 that does it.
6. Ms Grifo looks forward to achieving the various "green" objectives by Obama using executive power to bypass the people and congress, for example, his clearly extra-constitutional use of the EPA to regulate co2 emissions. With economic and scientific realists in congress, such "Progress" will not only be difficult, it fortunately will not happen.
6. In view of the 4-5 billion dollars per year (for the past 10 yrs or so) of pro global warming/"green" government spending, it seems quite precious to refer to "withering, well-funded attacks" on the scientific community.
So either just a bit more knowledge or perhaps a bit more integrity would be appropriate from a director of Scientific Integrity. It is , of course, difficult to ascertain which.
Etaoin Shrdlu
OMG! I read Ms. Grifo's commentary with my jaw dropped and mouth wide open. Ms Grifo, as a scientist and a proponent of the "enterprise of science", writes in a most un-scdientific manner. Her words are full of emotion and bias ("shown Little UNDERSTANDING of, or RESPECT for", "The prospect of two years of... TROUBLEMAKING is WORRYING", etc, emphasis mine). Emotions can blind one to the possibilities that exist. She infers that these congressman do not understand "climate change", which to her is a fact. However, climate change (aka global warming) is in fact a theory, and a very controversial one at that. Her implied assertion is akin to saying her religion is true and all others are false. Is she this intolerant of people with other faiths or cultures? Come on, Francesca. Take off your blinders and act like a scientist. Some things can be proven, and then disproven. Some things (like the link of MMR vaccine to autism) can be just outright fabricated. It is up to the scientist to TEST and retest the theory, and attempt to disprove the alternative. There are other possibilities when it comes to the current theory you hold so dear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many things troubling about this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the article touts Ms. Francesca Grifo as a "senior scientist" and "expert" on climate science. But it hardly takes any research to figure out that she has no expertise in climate science and is not even a physical scientist. What does that say about her "Scientific Integrity Program." One of the most basic requirements of scientific integrity is to state credentials honestly.
When she talks about a "science agenda," does she understand that real science has NO agenda? Most scientists seek to "understand the mind of God," as Albert Einstein put it. That is a noble undertaking that has no connection to anyone's political agenda.
Ms. Grifo is clearly promoting the political agenda of Al Gore, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Scientific American. She swallows that agenda whole without asking any of the questions that a real scientist would pose, such as "Where is the evidence linking man-made CO2 to Global Warming?"
She supports "energy efficiency" and "renewable technologies" in the same sentence without realizing that renewable technologies do not produce efficient energy. What is the point of compact fluorescent light bulbs running on terribly inefficient "renewable" energy?
"Renewable" today generally means ethanol, wind, and solar, none of which are the least bit efficient. They typically consume as much fossil fuel as they ever return during their life cycle. They may create the illusion of "free" energy, but as presently constituted, they will never reduce our dependence on conventional fuels.
She seems unaware that the Western Climate Initiative to impose 'Cap and Trade' regionally is falling apart. Oregon refused to pass its part of the bargain, calls are mounting in Washington State to reverse the Governor's unilateral actions, and New Mexico is completely backing out.
As to her call for "restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making," that sounds like something I could support, if I did not know what she really meant. She wants the "scientific community" dependent on Federal money to more heavily push Al Gore's agenda with incoming Republicans. In other words, she wants scientists to ever more completely compromise their integrity in exchange for contract funds. Most people now recognize that far too many scientists have gone much too far supporting political agendas already.
I hope I have responded with "courage and clarity" as Ms. Grifo requested.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
gordonfulks@hotmail.com
I was unsatisfied with Dr Francesca's column, because she seemed to be taking a rather passive approach to increasing US activities on Global Warming. Those of us who believe in the seriousness of the threat from Global Warming must look for ways to educate Americans and our government on Global Warming, so that America can take the lead role it must to carry out strong efforts against Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I was horrified to read the current four comments on her column, all submitted by convinced skeptics, very happy that little is being done on Global Warming, because they think it is false science. Where are SA readers who support action against Global Warming? Where are the replies to these one-sided comments?
I have seen several articles blaming scientists for failing to get their message through to the non-science educated public, but also noting that a primary reason for the communication failure is attitudinal filters among ardent skeptics, who see Global Warming as a political issue, not a real issue. Global Warming is not political, it is real and dangerous, and caused by human activities. The only way to stop the current damages to the earth and future damages, is for concerted, intelligent human actions, and that will never occur without active educational efforts by the technical community, not by just waiting for convenient opportunities given it by Congress, which will ignore their comments, just as they have done so blithely in the past.
Stephen Fass
Heard of King Chanute? Look it up. He demonstrated the foolishness of those who thought they could control nature. We can & should look after our environment but the wacko AGW view of how we should go about it will do more harm than good. A few years ago they were all advocating bio fuel. Look what that has done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has long been observed that the denialist means of changing the argument of the scientific facts of AGW is to denigrate the individuals involved; and in this they have been quite successful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan can change the climate in very real ways. There are more than 6 billion of us, and the industrial complex that has developed since the 1850's has been marked by a distinct slash-and-burn approach to the use of resources, and disregard for its effects.
It wasn't too long ago that that the forests of the northern US and Canada were being destroyed by the effects of acid rain, rain acidified by the release of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Since greater controls were placed on electrical generation, the problem of acid rain has been reduced.
We have done many things to affect the climate, from cutting and burning the forests of the atmosphere to reduce the ability of the biosphere to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen to causing the carbon dioxide content of the waters of the ocean to rise and kill of massive coral reefs.
I, too, am disturbed that the denialists take over comment threads whenever AGW is discussed; making it appear that their views reflect the mainstream of thought; and that the name of Al Gore is tiresomely repeated as if denigrating him is a valid means to disprove global warming. He didn't invent the idea, but he recognized the problem.
If you are correct that congressional hearings on global warming will actually give scientists the opportunity to make presentations to show how they come to these conclusions, and are not stacked with denialists with credentials then you are right to have hope. I have little hope that Daniel Issa will have the guts to listen to scientists who would make a fool of him as Steven Chu did Joe Barton (who couldn't figure out how oil got to Alaska from Texas.)
The science is in the open, the means and methods so that serious people can investigate; but the denialists have the loudest voices. They claim a conspiracy in order to increase grants and funding for green energy. But are they willing to look at how much subsidy there is for oil exploration and delivery?
We are running out of oil. It takes millions of years for it to me made, and has taken barely over a century to deplete to the point where we have to use risky offshore measures and tar sands pollution to extract.
The earth will repair itself, but it will take eons after man has killed ourselves off with our stupid ways of exploiting the environment without a care for the morrow.
Part of the problem is that trying to convince global warming deniers of the facts is like trying to argue with a stone. And I think after a time, a lot of people get tired of pointing out the falacies in their arguments again and again and again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are clearly and demonstrably wrong, but it gets so annoying and tiring to see their repeats of bad reasoning and twisted facts dumped into EVERY SINGLE article that mentions global warming or evolution again and again... as if repeating themselves a lot can substitute for clear reasoning, sound judgement, and facts. Here's a hint... it can't.
I'm not sure if some or all of these posts are paid for by interest groups, or if the posters are just that gullible, but before you post the same drivel about how Global warming doesn't exist or about how evolution is wrong, how about saving us the all the trouble of correcting your misrepresentations and having to read your poor excuse for arguments and just look back at pretty much any other article on these subjects and actually read the many great responses from people that explain clearly where your reasoning is off, your facts twisted or straight out wrong, along with plenty of links to solid sources that undeniably back up the prevailing view of the scientific (and rational) community.
If you have something new to say, that actually adds intelligence to the discussion, we'd all love to hear it, but if you just want to keep posting the same b.s., please just keep it to crayon rants on your refrigerator.
Well besides your emotionally charged language, arbitrary unsupported claims, and logically fallacious examples, there is not much one could gather from your essay as compelling. I would encourage you to learn about the elements of climate and the real science behind climate change before you attack it. It would at least be more persuasive if you actually knew what you were talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very optimistic to think that the Republican pledge to America would include any sort of protection to whistleblowers or citizens in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hyperbole in this which includes calling the UCS a criminal front group has made me flag this as abusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is just the opposite. There are some politicians who have chosen to support scientists. Have you been reading Science, Nature, Chemical and Engineering News etc? I am wondering where you are getting your information. It seems as if you have been reading Conspiracy Theory today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not surprise me that all the negative comments on every scientific mag article about clean energy or man-made global pollution is made by Republicans. They are the most anti-environmental people I have ever seen. And I just love how they take scientifically proven facts, twist them around, take them out of context, add the wrong number to carbon - CO2 instead of CO1 -, spew out a bunch of lies - like their demigod Bush always did - and try to convince everyone that all of America agrees with them and the Democrats are the demons of lies and deception and the axes of evil that is trying to destroy America's energy grid with all this worthless clean energy crap. The Republicans are the owners and implementers of death (oil), destruction (coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants), poverty (caused by coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants) and war (the warlords Bushs') for everyone except the ultra rich like them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey hate electric vehicles because those cars will get us quickly away from foreign oil and other fossil fuels and quickly start cleaning up our environment. Electric cars don't even need fossil fuel to charge them, yet the Republican CEO of GM tries to convince all of America that an electric car cannot operate without having a fossil fuel engine to charge the battery and ease us away from our addiction to foreign oil. We, Americans, are not addicted to oil; the Republicans are the owners of domestic and foreign oil and they are the ones who are addicted. Remember Bush walking down the street holding the Sody Price's hand like they were boyfriends and lovers? A picture is worth a thousand words. And anything the democratic administration comes up with to improve the environment, the Republicans are against it. So is it any surprise that all the negative comments and attacks on the author of the article are made by Republicans?
@Mp533,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The reason, lack of sufficient volcanic activity. While the 'climate change' hacks have now attempted to rig the numbers on volcanic CO2 emissions;.."
Evidence? I am sorry, but you do not get to make accusations up. Please present this evidence of deliberate fraud. An editorial, a blog or a comment on a page is not evidence. I want primary data of how the data was faked. Can you produce it or is the claim just one more lie from the pseduoskeptics?
"(stating volcanic emissions produce 200 million tons per year, versus man made emissions of 24 billion), their figures are as ridiculous as were their claims that we were losing 100,000 acres of rain forest per day."
Argument from Incredulity. Logic Fail. All you have done is express disbelief not any evidence.
"According to their own, long perpetuated, 'science', this eruption should have resulted in, at least, a localized and however minor nuclear winter scenario."
Who is this? Do you understand that you need large volcanic eruptions near the Equator to have an affect on global climate? Would you know why that is?
"The earth is a self cleaning system. To believe mankind is able to 'change the climate' anywhere, much less globally is the height of arrogance and folly"
The above statement looks like an article of faith not one grounded in empirical reality.
B"ut to believe the climate hacks, we must be even more powerful/destructive yet, as we have also, apparently, caused the exact same temperature rise (possibly 0.2 degrees) on Mars and Pluto."
I want to introduce you to the Inverse Square Law.
Go read it.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
Read it? Good. I hope you never make such a fundamentally ignorant statement again. Why is it that the pseduoskeptics are so scientifically ignorant of even the most basics physics yet feel competent enough to lecture on geophysics?
"The Union of Concerned Scientists is merely a criminal front group."
This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.
The earth is NOT a self cleaning system!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one, in their right mind, would believe that!
Your wrong about the compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your wrong about the word "Renewable".
Maybe you might recheck your point of view.
common sense
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood sense and sound judgment in practical matters
moral sense
The ability to distinguish between right and wrong
no-nonsense
Simple and straightforward; sensible
nonsense
1. Spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense
After reading a few of the above comments from those who, I thought, were scientifically literate readers, I am wondering if "scientific objectivity" even exists. A few of the nay-sayers about climate change would do well to first, clean up your spelling and punctuation, second, think more carefully about the science before condemning the efforts of those who are trying to alert the rest of us about the serious degradation of our planet's environment, and third, look around you for the increasingly evident signs of that degradation. American scientists will be facing enough opposition from some of the Tea Party favorites elected to Congress in November. They don't need to be belittled by those in their own profession. I would have expected to read of more support among SA readers for science-based initiatives than I've seen in this forum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only real green energy project, that is the tapping of energy out of the aether, like a Flying Saucer does and what was propbably used by Tesla for his Pierce Arrow Car, was dismissed by Nasa when they did not want that technology to be applied to the Shuttles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it that AGW keep saying that they need to educate those of us who do not accept their half truth filled arguments and malthusian rhetoric? As if we are ignorant and need them to shed the light of day on us and we'll all come around to their way of thinking. I read posts, articles, and papers by so called 'deniers' and see reams of data and information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistuibguy hammers on the industrial complex that arose in the 1850's and completely ignores that the northwest passage was open before then. Ignores the obvious polar cap melting....on Mars. Ignores that while ice is melting at an advanced pace on one side of Greenland it's growing even more rapidly on the other.
Global climate change is happening. Hopefully that statement will help you see I'm not a 'denier'. It's happening and always has happened. What I deny is man's role in that process.
tharriss insultingly and belittlingly says we should shut up and reread the same drivel that has been answered time and time again. Why is he bringing evolution into this? It must be because it rests on equally weak theories as man's role in CC? Emphasis on theories. Neither has been proven. Even Darwin said his theory would collapse if the missing links in his evolutionary chains weren't found. They still haven't been. Every single proposed link in the human chain todate has been reclassified as an ape. Those currently under concideration will be as well. Maybe tharriss should put a cap on the flaming and indulge in some reading himself. Look at opposing veiws with a mind for finding the merits within them before discounting them.
One last note to tuibguy: The reason why there are so many posts against AGW making it seem like it's the mainstream of thought is that poll after poll show that it IS the mainstream of thought. Alarmists have made their case to the people which resulted in the 'green' craze. Their positions have been weighed, measured and found wanting. Florida isn't under water. Even someone with a basic public high school exposure to science can tell that ice displaces it's mass in water. If all the ice shelfs melt (as scientifically implausible as that scenario is) the water locked in the ice is already displacing it's mass in the water . It wont cause water levels to rise at all.
@Telrunya,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As if we are ignorant and need them to shed the light of day on us and we'll all come around to their way of thinking."
That is an optimistic assessment of the pseduokeptics ability to comprehend and acknowledge facts that they find inconvenient. I am not that optimistic, but I find it great fun to point out your lots wholesale swallowing of lies and half-truths and proud display of ignorance.
"tuibguy hammers on the industrial complex that arose in the 1850's and completely ignores that the northwest passage was open before then."
Citation Needed. Primary source only please.
"Ignores the obvious polar cap melting....on Mars."
Citation Needed. Primary sources only please
"Global climate change is happening. Hopefully that statement will help you see I'm not a 'denier'."
Sorry but you are still an anti-science ignoramus. Allow me to demonstrate:
"It's happening and always has happened."
Logic Fail. Try that sort of reasoning with this: Forest fires have always happened and are still happening. What I deny is that forest arson is possible.
"Ignores that while ice is melting at an advanced pace on one side of Greenland it's growing even more rapidly on the other."
False:
Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Latest-GRACE-data-record-ice-loss-in-2010.html
"Emphasis on theories. Neither has been proven."
Science does not operate in proofs and you have once again demonstrated your willful ignorance of what he word theory means in science.
I was profoundly disappointed at your decision to include "The Bright Side of Gridlock" in what was otherwise an interesting and informative issue. I subscribe to Scientific American because I am interested in science, not in the views of some former scientist turned lobbyist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American should be embarrassed about publishing this political monologue, and apologize to their readers, and to the Republican members of Congress they slighted in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no argument with the sound science that climatologists have produced showing a global warming phenomenon. The coincidence of CO2 level rise with the rise of industrial development is interesting. Clearly there could be some relationship there. A connection to global warming is a much greater stretch. But, coincidence is not science, it is simply observation.
What I “deny” is the claimed “fact” that human activities have caused this. We just don't know this. Regularly, new revelations arise of yet more natural processes that have major impacts on this so-called “fact”. We clearly don't understand the nearly incomprehensible complexity of the Earth-system, so I understand the skepticism towards the "clamoring majority" of climate scientists who hold humans responsible. Scientific knowledge is not an artifact of majority approval.
Computer models of the climate seem largely behind the crisis dogma. Models of any enormously complex, essentially chaotic system can not be either complete or accurate. There are phenomenally large portions of the Earth-system about which we have only the sketchiest of knowledge. The models predict problems. Although I think most scientists exactly describe the limitations of their models, the news media and political forces ignore limitations (too complex for public consumption?) and create a self-generated, perhaps unintended, hysteria. But, a computer model is not reality.
Frankly, we don’t know enough about the system to safely address changing it. Hysterical fixes won’t make the changes safe. And, even the simplistic approaches appear to be so hideously expensive, that applying them could threaten the economies of the world, I gather. (I really don’t believe the climate models take into account factors related to world economics.)
As a scientist and engineer, PhD in mathematics, experienced teacher of science, technology, engineering, and math to graduate students in college, and to K12 levels, I am decidedly not anti-science. Nor am I a Republican. I’m not even a skeptic when it comes to global warming. But, did humans cause it? Whoa, let’s get real, please. We just don't know.
This isn't science; it's special pleading from the belief system of a lobby group. Considerable doubt exists as to the scientific integrity of the greenhouse gas hypothesis. Other hypotheses to do with long-term solar cycles are more convincing, but these are ignored. Quite apart from this, it is highly unscientific to be concerned about putting "climate scientists on the defensive". ALL scientists should have to defend their theses, particularly those over which there is so much doubt, but which have far-reaching and expensive consequences. Perhaps Francesca Grifo should give particular attention to the excellent article by Michael Shermer in the same issue on "Houdini's Skeptical Advice", not least the argument from ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.ladytoryburchshoes.com/">ladytoryburchshoes</a>hey there and thank you for your information – I’ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical points using this web site, since I experienced to reload the web site lots of times previous to I could get it to load properly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to read more.
.............
<a href="http://www.noosachocolate.com.au" rel="dofollow">gluten free chocolate</a>
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to read more.
.............
<a href="http://www.noosachocolate.com.au" rel="dofollow">gluten free chocolate</a>