What does consensus mean in science?       Global warming, fanatics & freedom       Future generations: climate victims or high-tech geniuses?       Let's lighten up       4 reasons to think twice                       About this website      Blog      Contact the creator of this website     HOME - back to the front page


About NOconsensus.org

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 is: 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 signup here.  

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 judgment.

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 $175,000 to 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 automatic acceptance.

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.






Begun in early 2009, the NOconsensus.org web site is wholly researched, written, designed, and published by Donna Laframboise, a self-employed photographer. Prior to 2002, Ms. Laframboise wrote news features, weekly columns, and daily editorials for Canadian newspapers and magazines. Between 1993 and 1998, she was a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - serving as a Vice-President from 1998-2001.

As a journalist, Ms. Laframboise frequently championed unpopular causes. After Guy Paul Morin was wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1992, most journalists forgot about him.

Ms. Laframboise repeatedly used her weekly column in the Toronto Star to expose the flawed forensic science that led to his conviction. (He was exonerated in 1995 and eventually financially compensated.)

The same critical-thinking skills that led Ms. Laframboise to bear witness to the Guy Paul Morin story are at work here. Just because a jury has reached a consensus on someone's guilt or innocence, doesn't mean that consensus is correct. Just because most people believe human activity causes global warming doesn't make it so.

[Donna's long-winded Google profile]