Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology has published an insightful discussion on the climate science debate. It is titled “On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust” and is worth reading.
I only have one comment on her excellent post and this is respect to treating the climate issue as having just two “camps”. She writes (bold face added).
“And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. climateprogress.org versus wattsupwiththat.com and realclimate.org versus climateaudit.org) can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed.”
As we summarize in our article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union
there are actually three perspectives in the climate science debate. The view that is most robust scientifically, yet has been generally ignored by policymakers and others, is that
“Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influencesare significant and involve a diverse range of first- order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human infl uences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.”
We need more discussion on the blogs of this viewpoint, as it is well supported by the peer reviewed scientific literature (e.g. see).