The problem I have with the article is that it confuses two separate debates, one scientific (is climate change real?) and one value-based (what should we do about it?). By putting these two issues into the blender, the article confuses rather than clarifies. …
The Revkin article would have been a great contribution had it better separated the science from policy debates. There has not been any real debate over the science in several years, perhaps even the last decade. There has been and continues to be broad agreement among scientists about what we know and what we don’t know. The recent evolution is in the political debate. Unfortunately, by combining these questions, the Revkin article does little to clarify the nuances of the debate for the non-expert.
the orthodoxy that is in the public mind now is not the IPCC (which IS the orthodoxy for climate scientists, but is largely not what gets thru to the media and into policy realm).
There, the dominant framing now is the far ‘hotter’ notion that climate is a realtime crisis that can be solved with existing technologies and willpower.
The folks I focused this story on say that is NOT a useful approach and is flawed on every side. The building human influence has multi-decadal momentum. There is no quick fix. CO2 persists for generations and that is what creates need for prompt action. But even urgent action would not lessen current climate extremes, etc etc.
For the average American, all of that is news. And that means I’ve got to write about it.
OK, but this dominant framing is not what Gore or Hansen or Stern have been saying, so I don’t think you could call it an orthodoxy. I think the term “non-skeptic heretic” should die a quick death.
Stealers Wheel have the last word: