Thursday, June 28, 2007

Grand Conspiracy #2

A central feature to believing that global warming isn't happening is a conspiracy to hide the truth. You cannot hold the belief that global warming isn't happening without also believing that the scientists who study it are either incompetent or conspiring to defraud the public or a combination of both. I think many people who hold this belief aren't aware of the vast number of people involved. This isn't 12 pointy-headed scientists that have come up with this idea. Anthropogenic global warming is supported by data gathered by a vast array of people.

So how many people are involved in this Grand Conspiracy to defraud Americans?

Let's count them:

The scientists of the International Panel for Climate Change:

2500+ scientific expert reviewers
850+ Contributing authors
450+ lead authors

Panels of the National Academies of Science of the U.S.

250+ of America's most talented and honored scientists

American Meteorological Society:

11,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts

American Geophysical Union:

45,000 scientists from 140 countries

This is just the scientists. From the most honored members of the National Academies, down to graduate students who are members of the American Meteorological Society. Roughly 60,000+ scientists would need to be involved. 60,000+ scientists keeping a secret that is so massive that they are able to defraud the world.

Now keep in mind, to hold the position that global warming isn't occurring and isn't caused by manmade carbon emissions you must also hold that 60,000+ scientists are so conspiring to defraud Americans. (The most common accusation I have read is that they are merely in it for the grant dollars).

So either 60,000+ scientists are defrauding the world and Michael Crichton has managed to figure it out on his own, or 60,000+ scientists are actually doing their jobs, and have shown that global warming is happening and is caused my manmade carbon emissions.



Chuck said...

Ok, so agricultural output will be increased due to increased CO2 levels and there is no way to force all countries to reduce emissions, so now what?

The Factician said...

"so agricultural output will be increased"

I think that is still fairly controversial, but it may be generally true.

"so now what?"

I haven't the foggiest. I do not advocate for one position or another in terms of a solution (or, if a solution fails to present itself, mitigation strategies).

I merely advocate that we keep the debate honest, and not argue things that aren't true.