The consensus of climate change experts is reflected in their endorsement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It states: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” As of 2007, no national or international scientific organization on the planet disputes this.
Climate change is a large area of study, in which there are differences of opinion about fine points. These contentious details do not invalidate the larger consensus that we are adversely affecting our global climate. A few experts and pieces of information lean one way, and the overwhelming body of evidence and increasing majority of experts lean another. To base policy decisions upon the former rather than the latter is absurd. To interpret 97 percent certainty as “debate” is absurd.
The false perception exists that there is still significant doubt. Where is that perception coming from?
Could the entire worldwide scientific community have been bought off with grant money? Perhaps there are some dollars leading in that direction, but I ultimately find it an improbable overall explanation. Where else might the dollars be headed, and where might they be coming from?
News organizations tend to benefit from reporting controversy, whether real or imaginary. Politicians often show a reluctance to base their policy on facts that contradict their positions, particularly when they’re receiving contributions from industries that have an interest in those positions. Could they be the sources of the “controversy?”
Ken Alleman,
professional writing senior
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Consensus on climate change ignored to feed controversy” on social media.
