The Sound Green

Jan Corfee-Morlot, Mark Maslin and Jacquelin Brugess collaborated in an article in a 2007 publication of Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, namely “Global Warming in the Public Sphere.”  I have never heard of this publication, though at face value, it seems like it is aimed at a small and exclusive audience of philosophical scientists.  The article discussed historical points at which environmentalism, or the case of global warming, was advanced as a conversation that should be had among citizens of the world.  These historical points were put into various categories of sectors, one of which was “Scientific discovery and confirmation of global warming.”  And inside this section was what interested me most: “Convergence and contestation in climate science.”  Thought this was written in 2007, three years later it is the aspect of global warming, that has been communicated to me, which irks me the most.  It wracks my brain and tears up my veins from the inside.  Here in this article, the authors mention several scientific studies (i.e. Wigley and Jones, Lamont) which measured an increase in the earth’s temperature.  Then, they say, that despite these facts, others disagree.  Is this because they have other facts? If so, where are they, and why don’t you mention them in this article?  I find it highly troubling that when I seek out articles that are for or against climate change, they merely muse about organizations which have or have not done research, but they rarely state raw facts that I can trust.  Global warming, to me, is innocent until proven guilty (however, whether or not we call it global warming, I obviously still believe and strongly support that we need to make serious changes to be able to sustain our existence upon this earth).  How can two legitimate scientific communities have two completely opposing views on something that should be able to be measured in factual, transparent terms? This article only perpetuates my frustration.