The last few days have seen frenzied volleys in
the fight over climate science and policy, beginning with a 16 - author op - ed article in The Wall Street Journal on Friday and, most recently, with a 39 - author rebuttal published today in the paper.
It's important to note that there's also sometimes a kind of «false inequivalence» in
the fight over climate science and policies — an implication that the lack of action on greenhouse gases is largely the result of the unfair advantage in money and influence held by industries dealing in, or dependent on, fossil fuels.
The challenge here, of course, is that
the fight over climate science, to my mind, is a spillover from the more heated, and deeper, debate over climate policy.
Not exact matches
Discussions of
climate science and policy have seen endless
fights over the appropriate role of scientists.
Getting past the insults and accusations and (ultimately useful)
fights over statistical approaches to studying
climate trends in regions (or eras) with sparse data, it's clear to me that this is an area where
science will out, in the end.
So in a 2015 poll, they broke out the question a little to It then asks respondents which areas they would like
science and innovation to prioritize
over the next 15 years, with areas such as job creation, health and medical care, energy supply, education and skills, and the
fight against
climate change among the issues they are asked to consider.
This is far from the language of the
climate wars — which are
fought over values very superficially and in an idiomatic language of
science.