The Peer Reviewed Literature Has Spoken
Global Warming/Climate Change — by Stephan Lewandowsky March 30, 2010
Much confusion and spin infects current public discussion of “peer reviewed” research: first we had Maurice Newman, the Chairman of the ABC, who suggested that “distinguished scientists” challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change by “peer reviewed research”, although he oddly failed to name such research.
Now we have John McLean, an author of a lone article that was celebrated by some media scribes as overturning the scientific consensus on climate change,
Climate Debate: Opinion vs. Evidence
Global Warming/Climate Change, Society — by Stephan Lewandowsky March 12, 2010
by Stephan Lewandowsky, Winthrop Professor and an Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia.
What exactly is "balance"? Our society rightly strives for balance, and many issues are deservedly considered by presenting a balanced set of opinions.
There are however clear cases in which the only balance that matters is the balance of evidence rather than of opinion: Serial killer Ivan Milat’s protestations of innocence should not – and did not – balance the evidence arrayed against him. The desire to cure AIDS with garlic and beetroot does not balance the medical consensus that the disease is caused by HIV and can only be beaten by retroviral drugs. And the current wave of sensationalism and distortion cannot balance the scientific consensus that climate change is real and is caused by human emissions.
The current descent of the climate debate into a cauldron of misrepresentations that are at odds with scientific reality must therefore be of concern.
Comments (62)
