What Journals?

Apparently not New Scientist, Science, Nature, or National Geographic.

{snip}

Here's a good article on the subject:

Get off the fence over global warming

From issue 2505 of New Scientist magazine, 25 June 2005, page 25
Mark Lynas

CLIMATE change is not a scientific issue. No, really, I'm serious. It
is far more important than that. It forces us to make fundamental
choices about our most basic belief systems. If policy-makers and the
public could forget about the science, we'd have a much better chance
of averting this looming catastrophe before it's too late.

Here's the problem. Treating climate change purely as a scientific
issue obscures the real points of contention, which are political and
economic. I once spent hours debating with a climate sceptic about why
the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are retreating, only to discover that his
real beef was that he believed all environmentalists were socialists
in disguise, whose real agenda was to destroy capitalism. In other
words, we weren't really arguing about Kilimanjaro at all. Wouldn't it
be a lot more straightforward to get this kind of disagreement out in
the open? Climate change is an emotional debate conducted in
entirely the wrong intellectual language.

A second problem of dealing with climate change solely in scientific
terms is that it gives sceptics and contrarians an enormous advantage.
"The science is still uncertain," they cry - and they are right. The
science is uncertain. If it wasn't uncertain, it wouldn't be science.
As Karl Popper put it, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot by
definition be scientific.

But this dictum does not apply in the policy arena. Mere mention of
the word "uncertainty" is enough to send any rational politician
scurrying for cover. The same goes for the general public, for whom
uncertainty will always be a reason not to act, especially if the
consequences of acting are likely to be painful. Global warming
sceptics are adept at invoking uncertainty to delay action. No more
than a handful of climatologists are sceptics on the question of
climate change; most sceptics aren't experts in any scientific sense.
But this is a subtlety lost on both the media, who want a spokesperson
for each side, and the general public, who simply want someone they
can believe in.

Worse still, when a journalist rings up a climate scientist for their
opinion on the issue, few oblige. Most either come over all shy or
ramble on about their latest graph. Many in the media and the public,
and even among the world's political elite, are all desperate for the
scientific establishment to show leadership on climate change. But
when the ball is passed in their direction, the scientists kick it
right back, saying, "That's a question for policy-makers. We couldn't
possibly comment."

Hence the oft-quoted "demand" from the UN sponsored Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 60 per cent cuts in emissions.
Journalists are so desperate to write a paragraph beginning, "The
world's scientists have called for 60 per cent reductions..." that
they have to put words along these lines into the IPCC's mouth. The
IPCC, of course, doesn't "do" policy and has never said any such
thing.

But what about scientific objectivity. Isn't it important for
scientists to protect their professional integrity by staying
neutral in policy debates? This is a much more serious concern.
Objectivity is crucial in the scientific process. The public tends to
trust scientists when they are not seen as beholden to political or
economic interests.

But scientific objectivity should not condemn intelligent scientists
to the political equivalent of a Trappist vow of silence. If our
future is under threat, scientists have a duty to say so. Where, for
example, is the volcanologist who refuses on the grounds of
"neutrality" to warn of impending eruptions? Or the tropical
meteorologist who sits tight-lipped with his models and satellite data
while a Category 5 storm spins towards a vulnerable Caribbean
coastline?

I think there is something sinister going on. The scientific community
has been intimidated into neutrality by environmentalism's powerful
opponents. In the US, the IPCC is already pilloried by conservatives
for daring to discuss climate change at all, and its yelps of
objectivity are seen by its opponents as signs of weakness.

A few scientists have made political statements: Robert May, president
of the Royal Society, and former IPCC co-chair John Houghton, are
examples. It is time others followed their lead. Climate scientists
need to accept their role in the real world. As part of the small
proportion of the population who actually understand the dire
situation we are in, scientists have a moral responsibility to help us
find a way out of this crisis. Environmental campaigners have tried
and failed to do it. Now it's someone else's turn.

Environmentalists are like Cassandra before the fall of Troy: destined
to tell the truth but never to be believed. Climate scientists are
still burdened with the opposite problem. They are much more likely to
be believed, but they cannot quite bring themselves to tell the truth.

Mark Lynas is a writer, campaigner and commentator on climate change
issues (www.marklynas.org). He is the author of High Tide: How climate
crisis is engulfing our planet (HarperPerennial, 2005)

Whatever, Spike. Keep drinking that Kool Aid, and don't bother thinking
for yourself.

That's nearly unreadable. When I look at the scientific opinion on
controversial topics like global warming I consider sources like the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council to be
credible. You probably think they're sprout-eating leftists.

I used to be a skeptic about global warming and the dire predictions of
its consequences. One reason is that I worked in supercomputing at NASA
and I knew how crude and unreliable climate models really were. I still
think the models are inadequate at best, but I believe the evidence for
climate change and man's role in climate change is now undeniable.