Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

Why the Climate Debate is on a Road to Nowhere

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Last summer, when Rick Perry mania was cresting and he was spouting nonsense about climate science and evolution, I said this:

Serious, science-based climate skeptics have a chance to separate themselves from the foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy that defines their public image.

Of course, in that same post, I also that the Texas Governor

will likely saddle up the congealed Republican discontent, anger and culture war politics, and ride all the way to the GOP Presidential nomination.

Hey, nobody bats a thousand. Anyway, at the time, some of you who are in the climate skeptic camp chafed at being lumped in with the mouth foamers (climate science is a hoax!) in your midst. My point was that, fair or not, the crazies (there is no greenhouse effect!) had come to be the representative face of the climate skeptic position. It now appears that some well known climate contrarians are coming to this conclusion, too. In the American Thinker (which is no climate science friendly precinct), Fred Singer recently penned an essay titled,

Climate Deniers are Giving us Skeptics a Bad Name

Wait, did he just say climate deniers? And he repeats it a bunch of times in the piece! I thought that term was verboten in the climate skeptic universe? What's going on here? It seems that Singer wants to put some distance between him and the crazies (he identifies two different groups of "deniers"). Interestingly, he sees only one position on the other side of the spectrum--the "warmista," who has "fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming." True, the climate doomer is the public face of the climate campaign, but it is by no means the only position in the climate consensus universe. Conveniently, Singer places climate skeptics "somewhere in the middle" of the climate landscape, between "climate deniers" and "warmistas." That middle ground exists only in Singer's head. But to be fair to Singer, he also says that "these three categories" [denier, skeptic, warmista] "do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations." After making his case against what he considers the two extremes, he ends on this note:

I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers.

Well, so long as climate "deniers" and doomers remain the de facto public representatives of the climate debate, their mutual antagonism and contempt will continue to shrink the space for rational discourse, and very little will be accomplished.

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In