Despite media claims to the contrary, the debate is not over. There is
no consensus among scientists concerning global warming. While most appear
to subscribe to the theory, thousands of others do not. Even amongst those who
do, many areas of uncertainty and contention remain. Nor is there a single
answer to the question of how we should proceed from here.
The purpose of this website is to link you to
points-of-view you deserve to hear - to expand the debate at a time when some people
are trying to shut it down.
April 2010 Update: Since
August of last year a great deal has changed.
Climategate occurred in November, just as I'd finalized the outline of the
book I'd thought I was writing. It has been a bit of a rollercoaster since then,
with fresh developments unfolding at a furious pace. My book's new working title
Decoding the Climate Bible: Almost nothing
you've heard about the UN's climate change report is true. To receive news
about the release of this book, please
August 2009 Update: The
creator of this website is writing a book, the working title of which is:
Not So Fast: 10 Things You Need to Know About the Global Warming Debate.
History is littered with ideas that were once aggressively promoted and widely
believed, only to be rejected as absurd a few decades later. Eugenics,
prohibition, lobotomies were all supported by scientific luminaries of their
day. Not being a scientist, I'm not equipped to evaluate the mountains of global
warming research directly. What I am in a position to assess are the
arguments various folks construct to support their positions. The global warming
debate is as much about rhetoric and persuasion as it is about science. People
who act like bullies, who behave as though measured, respectful dialogue is
beneath them, shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us decline to trust their
NOconsensus.org believes everyone has a right to participate in
this discussion - even scientists who work for oil companies. Al Gore has an interest
in making things sound dire so organizations will continue to pay him
deliver a speech. Greenpeace has an incentive to exaggerate so people will
donate to its cause. Journalists know alarming headlines
sell newspapers. If all these folks get a seat at the discussion table, a broad
cross-section of scientists deserves to be present, too.
A great deal of online global warming commentary shoots-the-messenger. Rather
than debating the issues, many bloggers attempt to silence other people by
declaring them morally or politically suspect. Rather than discussing matters in
respectful, professional tones, many websites insist those with contrary views are
marginal individuals whose ideas don't merit consideration.
Finding one's way through this thicket of emotion and intolerance is no easy task. NOconsensus.org attempts to isolate the cogent,
sensible reasons why global warming theory deserves a hard look rather than
If the fate of the Earth really is at stake, it's vital that we consider
multiple perspectives and explore a variety of possible responses. None of us have made an informed decision if we've
only listened to one point-of-view.