Debating Points

On the Scientific American blog, George Musser and David Biello react to the NYC climate change debate (note: 79-page transcript now available). Biello observes that, behind the divisive rhetoric, there was consensus on at least two broad points: One, that global warming is a real and serious problem (granted, with disagreement as to how serious), and two, that it is primarily an energy issue.

As for Musser, he thinks the term "scientific consensus" is counterproductive in the climate debate. While a valid claim, (i.e., there really is a consensus), Musser argues that it means something different to scientists than it expresses to the public, and that trotting out the term too often rubs independent thinkers the wrong way, allows skeptics to claim they are being muzzled and makes the scientists invoking it come off as arrogant (even though they themselves see it as an expression of humility). He concludes:

Telling people that there is a consensus cannot substitute for explaining why there is a consensus. As much as climate scientists may be wearying of debate, they need to press onward and treat each question as though it was the first time they had ever heard it.