When I checked news from good old Germany I stumbled across a discussion about global warming. The discussion was sparked off by an article comparing global warming sceptics with creationists. The strategies seem indeed similar, the sceptics will find some convincing specialist on internet, whose genius unveils that the 450 scientists working for the IPCC are nothing but fools.
The arguments of the Global Warming Deniers sound nearly religious: Man is not important enough and too impotent to influence our climate. Global Warming is just a hoax devised by big companies to make more money from the little man.
Now that's what I would call a great conspiracy theory. Manipulating climatologists, oceanologists, metereologists, geologists and physists worldwide to spread the evil lie of Human Caused Global Warming. I just wonder which global player would profit from a change toward more environmental friendly policies. And I wonder if I can ever get paranoid enough to believe somebody would push scientist all over the planet into 'Faking it'.
A reduction in CO2 emission could harm some businesses though, those producing and dealing with the commodity oil. Though they might already plan an exit strategy for their core business (Shell and BP research a lot into photovoltaic technology), the oil giants have some vital interesting that the consumption (and pollution) patterns of oil don't drastically change. But maybe that's just another conspiracy theory.
Some of the posting I read were simply hilarious, but I was amazed how some of GW-sceptics referred to their pseudo-scientific single sources on the internet. One article, written by a German physicist, sounded quite convincing, but luckily I found a reply to his yarn. A Professor Rahmsdorf, who works for the IPCC, managed to rebut his arguments with sufficient foundation, while being very comprehendable.
Stefan Rahmsdorf, oceanologist and member of the German Advisory Counsil on Global Change, published as well an interesting essay about the strategies of The Climate Sceptics. It deals with their primary pseudoscientific arguments and critics, and serves as a good example how to deal with dogmatic attitudes about the Unspeak expression 'Climate Change'.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)