New Scientist (or “Non-scientist” as it should be more accurately called) continues to smear any attempt at balance in climate education with misrepresentations, straw men and half-truths. Citing the Heartland documents, it recycles the same, tired old arguments that we have heard a thousand times before:
Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don’t know and where the uncertainties lie. Yet a plan outlined in documents allegedly from Heartland would build a curriculum around statements such as “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”. This is to create controversy where none exists.
There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere.
We all acknowledge that humans are warming the atmosphere. The question, and where the doubt lies, is in the magnitude of that warming, in particular relative to natural climate cycles. Why are supposedly intelligent publications incapable of understanding this obvious difference? If that warming is one degree, then this isn’t a problem. As we keep repeating, the catastrophic projections come from multiple positive feedbacks in climate models.
In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth’s warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).
Ah yes, science by head count, and the politicised statements of a political organisation, the IPCC.
In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate. (source)
Smears, smears and more smears. And hints at a scientific conspiracy and selective use of evidence were both clearly exposed in the Climategate emails, but that doesn’t seem to concern the editorial writers today.
Why do they bother? Only total indoctrination will satisfy the headbangers at Non Scientist.