It documents how a small group of scientists with links to industry were able to sow doubt about the scientific
consensus and delay effective policy
on DDT, tobacco,
acid rain and, now, global warming.
Quite frankly, the various arguments
on consensus (and denial thereof by the pseudoskeptics) are equivalent to discussing the number of angels who can dance
on a pin, given that by any measure the scientific
consensus on AGW is as high as that
on ozone depletion by CFCs,
acid rain, or the dangers of smoking tobacco, in all of which we found the
consensus sufficient to act.
Drawing
on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over
acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action
on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political
consensus on climate change will depend heavily
on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.