I was in Barnes and Noble this morning buying magazines for the beach safari next week and I noticed that Skeptic magazine has Climate Skeptics for cover issue… if you guys have looked at it and have comments could you start a separate thread with critiques & accolades (i.e. do you recommend the issue)
Might be helpful to CC for his essay ..main reason to post it here…
Well, I decided to contribute and actually purchased a copy of that magazine. Pretty good issue, lots of interesting stuff.
Incidentally the July/August issue of The Humanist also features “The Climate of Denial - Culture of Belief” on its cover and includes three interesting stories.
But, I’ll admit to being a little miffed that all four of the articles drown on - why are these guys paid by the word, and allowed to rattle on with a hundred words to tell 60/70 words worth of story? OK maybe I am just jealous, still sure seems like a lot of fluff could have been eliminated, leaving behind even better (more readable) articles. But, OK that said all four articles were interesting and worth reading.
Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers (I’m guestimating it weighed in bit under 4000 words) actually has a fun interesting approach to distinguishing and exploring the differences between a honest Skeptic and the Denialist.
Below are the section headings David Brin used.
- Who is an Expert?
- The News I Need from the Weather Report
- A little Humility
- Is it Really Close to 100%?
- The Young Guns of Science
Points out that post-docs and junior professors “are always on the lookout for chinks and holes in the current paradigm, where they can go to topple Nobel laureates and make a name for themselves.” This is important because “the Denier narrative is that every single young atmospheric scientist is corrupt or a gelded coward. Not a few, or some, or even most…but every last one of them. Only that can explain why none of them have “come out.”
- Who are the More Likely Conspirators
- The Tobacco Connection
- The 1% Precautionary Principle
“Denialists demand that no rash measures be taken, until there is proof of danger” “In other words, this reasoning alone shifts the burden of proof onto the shoulders of those urging action, a burden that cannot be met even with 99% scientific consensus.”
This “... Precautionary Principle holds that some kinds of danger call for preventive action, even if the peril in question has not yet been proven. This principle is not just a lefty nostrum. It was put forward most insistently by that icon of the neocon right, (former VP Dick)...”
- The Role of Propaganda Media
- Why it’s Hard to Get the Scientist to Answer
- What’s a Sincere Skeptic to Do?
I’m sorry I don’t have more time to play with this, but gotta run. Anyone else out there read David Brin’s article?