Reviews (3)RSS
Tom Smerlingby

1 of 1 people found this review helpful
The Galileo of global warming?
Some would say that Guy Callendar's lonely stand -- in the 1930's -- against the prevailing scientific consensus at the time was climate science's "Galileo moment." As extensive research in the 40's, 50's and 60's produced more data, other scientists gradually came around and a new consensus formed.

In any event, the main thing that distinguished Galileo from the Church -- and, today, climate scientists from the skeptics -- is empiricism. Galileo drew conclusions from actual observations rather than starting with a priori truths (drawn the bible, the Greeks, etc.).

Today's climate scientists, following in Galileo's path, simply follow the evidence wherever it leads. Most climate skeptics, like the Church, seem to start with a pre-drawn conclusion -- "human-caused warming must be false, because we hate the solutions" -- then search for evidence to build their case.
John Russellby

1 of 1 people found this review helpful
When the unthinkable meets the possible.
I was having an internet argument the other day about fossil oil. I explained my view that we had reached the end of 'easy' oil and from now on the price of oil would rocket as demand outstrips supply. His assertion was that because so many important things are made of oil—from plastics to fertilisers—we just couldn't run out of it, it was just too important. My retort was that just because something is unthinkable does not make it impossible.

When challenged by something 'too horrible to contemplate' many people seem to turn to denial as a defence mechanism.

1 of 1 people found this review helpful
I like it, but a lot of people will say "who is Copernicus?"
I think we need to remember that the history of science is a pretty minority interest, sadly...

Submit review See all 3 reviews