The admission of wrongdoing by a prominent climate scientist is likely to fuel the fires of the political
debate around climate science, regardless of what the documents reveal.
At the same time, well - funded contrarian groups continue to manufacture
doubt around climate science in an attempt to undermine public understanding.
(The writer of that piece, Danish author and analyst Bjorn Lomborg, has been accused of having links to the Koch Brothers, who are notorious for funding
misinformation around climate science.
The latest twist in a political
drama around climate science involves an admission of soliciting Heartland Institute material under a false name
«The startlingly high temperatures so far in 2016 have sent
shockwaves around the climate science community,» David Carlson, director of the World Climate Research Programme, co-sponsored by the WMO, said in a statement.
I don't believe he was referring to «authority» in the sense of expertise; in some sense the role of the IPCC in fixing
belief around climate science is similar to Peirce's «authority», but it has no enforcement power and to me it seems far more like a step in the process of fixation and communication of scientific information, part of the publishing process, than anything like what Peirce was talking about in method 2.
Now in the US, about half our elected officials are climate deniers or are scared to even talk about the subject, so the impact of this 1998 campaign and subsequent misinformation
campaigns around climate science is still clearly holding us back from climate policy solutions.»
And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the
debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?
CB: When you look across the Atlantic and you see the way that climate science is being politicised across the political divide, but not least by the current president of the United States, in terms of the US — and it has been, historically, a key contributor to the global body of
knowledge around climate science — do you have concerns about the way that some of the climate science seems to be under this kind of political pressure at the moment?