Kolbert attended a symposium gathering 300 scientists, and went into the field with researchers in Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, and many other points. She always puts a human face on the scientists she encounters, with charming physical descriptions and biographical details. Through it all, she found no significant dissent to the climate change theory, other than in details. She did find reports denying the impact of increased greenhouse gases on our environment funded by the petroleum industry, or utility companies, for example.
She laments that the public is not aware that there is consensus on climate change, having been led by some media, by industries with an interest in avoiding emission controls, and even by their own governments to believe there is significant dissent in the scientific community. In opposition to this view, she cites a study of peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change - over 900 articles between 1993 and 2003. Of these, 75 percent supported the position that emissions caused by humans...
were responsible for at least some of the observed warming of the past 50 years. The remaining 25 percent, which dealt with questions of methodology or climate history, took no position on current conditions. Not a single article disputed the premise.
The book has a remarkably unbiased tone despite Kolbert's obvious point of view. The final chapter, where she talks about the Bush administration's response to the Kyoto Protocol, is the most she editorializes, and even then, it's hard to argue with her conclusions when she presents quotes to demonstrate the baffling lack of content in the Bush administration's arguments against Kyoto and similar efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions, and for their own vague plans.
She points out that while American scientists have been the major contributors to our knowledge that human activity is contributing to global warming, the American government has been the major stumbling block in achieving any meaningful action towards mitigating the harm. She highlights cases where the administration altered reports by their own scientists to downplay the dangers of climate change. Even in this chapter, she explores the limitations of Kyoto and other agreements, but she makes convincing arguments against the United States' objections.
Article comments
1 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!
And interesting figures on the peer-reviewed journals!