-
Website
http://catavino.net -
Original page
http://www.catavino.net/blog/a-take-on-global-warming-from-experts-such-as-richard-smart-pancho-campo-michael-rolland-and-other-influentials-of-the-wine-world/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
the majority of wineries around the world are NOT into sustainable winemaking practices
M.
the majority of wineries around the world are NOT into sustainable winemaking practices
M.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Nevermind, here it goes again without the links...
Nice post!
Just a few notes about the questions posed...
1. prevention vs adaptation
When it comes to climate change, unfortunately, we don't have the ability to prevent it ,cause it's something that's already taking place, and apart from that (the antropogenic part), it's something that even if we were not injecting massive amounts of greenhouse gases (ghg) it would happen naturally, like it has been happening since the earth got it's oceans and atmosphere (and sometimes pretty suddenly, not like what we are still facing today). At least for the time being we don't have the capabilities to geoengineering the planet to prevent (or stop) climate change. Although it can (still) be mitigated. So, in the end of the day, we'll have to adapt (something the human species is very good at!)
2. sustainable winemaking practices
The good way: when wineries see the money they can gain. Either "real" cash, through more cost effective practices (like energy efficiency, good water management, soil preservation, etc...), and/or "virtual" cash, through the marketing of the whole sustainability of their businesses (but then it comes down to "real" cash...)
The bad way: being imposed either by the market (plain economis and consumers can be very powerfull forces!) or by governments or ruling bodies, most likely because of international agreements and political goals. Anyway, even if as we speak (write!) the majority of wineries around the world are not into sustainable winemaking practices, they're already on the loosing side, the winners are going to be the ones who start first
3.wine packaging and distribution
Sustainability and bag-in-a-box (bib) don't mix, no matter what Richard Smart and TetraPak (they're selling their product) say. Bibs are made of plastics (and plastic it sure isn´t eco-friendly) and cardbox has short recicling cycle (meaning paper can only be recicled a couple of times).
If you want to reduce the energy intensity and increase the sustainabilty of your wine business think cork and glass (glass can be recicled almost ad infinitum and it´s a inert material and cork, well, it´s the definition of big business sustainability...)
Well, this came down to a lenghty comment (and there´s so much more we could talk about, but unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the conference)...
btw, nice interview with Sancho Campo!
I'll be waiting on your saturday posts.
regards,
M.
ps: congrats for your fine blog!
pps: btw it looks like you could need a small help with your wiki, but i'll talk to you on another ocasion...
Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
"><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
Richard
Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
"><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
Richard
Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
"><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
Richard
Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
"><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
/>
Richard
Nevermind, here it goes again without the links...
Nice post!
Just a few notes about the questions posed...
1. prevention vs adaptation
When it comes to climate change, unfortunately, we don't have the ability to prevent it ,cause it's something that's already taking place, and apart from that (the antropogenic part), it's something that even if we were not injecting massive amounts of greenhouse gases (ghg) it would happen naturally, like it has been happening since the earth got it's oceans and atmosphere (and sometimes pretty suddenly, not like what we are still facing today). At least for the time being we don't have the capabilities to geoengineering the planet to prevent (or stop) climate change. Although it can (still) be mitigated. So, in the end of the day, we'll have to adapt (something the human species is very good at!)
2. sustainable winemaking practices
The good way: when wineries see the money they can gain. Either "real" cash, through more cost effective practices (like energy efficiency, good water management, soil preservation, etc...), and/or "virtual" cash, through the marketing of the whole sustainability of their businesses (but then it comes down to "real" cash...)
The bad way: being imposed either by the market (plain economis and consumers can be very powerfull forces!) or by governments or ruling bodies, most likely because of international agreements and political goals. Anyway, even if as we speak (write!) the majority of wineries around the world are not into sustainable winemaking practices, they're already on the loosing side, the winners are going to be the ones who start first
3.wine packaging and distribution
Sustainability and bag-in-a-box (bib) don't mix, no matter what Richard Smart and TetraPak (they're selling their product) say. Bibs are made of plastics (and plastic it sure isn´t eco-friendly) and cardbox has short recicling cycle (meaning paper can only be recicled a couple of times).
If you want to reduce the energy intensity and increase the sustainabilty of your wine business think cork and glass (glass can be recicled almost ad infinitum and it´s a inert material and cork, well, it´s the definition of big business sustainability...)
Well, this came down to a lenghty comment (and there´s so much more we could talk about, but unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the conference)...
btw, nice interview with Sancho Campo!
I'll be waiting on your saturday posts.
regards,
M.
ps: congrats for your fine blog!
pps: btw it looks like you could need a small help with your wiki, but i'll talk to you on another ocasion...
Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)
Richard
First off, thank you for your lengthy comment. We are big supporters of lengthy comments, because it means that you're willing to dialogue with us, which is the whole point of blogging, no?! So with that, thanks for your short novel and your very appreciated comment on our blog ;-)
In response to your comments, allow me to tackle each one as they were proposed to us at the conference.
1. If there is one message we were able to take away from this conference, it was that there isn't a scientist out there who doesn't agree that the climate is changing. This cannot be debated at this point. What they aren't clear on is whether humans are the cause of this situation, and if so, how can we mitigate it as quickly as possible. That said, because scientists agree that climate change is occurring, adaption is inevitable whether we like it or not. Hence, the continuing sound bites about how wineries can make changes now to prepare for the future. What bothered me was that I wanted more concrete tools of things I could do on a personal level, as a writer and as Spanish resident now to mitigate the problem. So have I walked away with new tools? We'll leave that for our future post ;-)
2. As you may have seen in the following post, there were concerns from wineries that the profit wouldn't outweigh the investment in sustainable winemaking practices. However, if we use the incredible success of both Banrock Station and Torres as examples of leaders in sustainable winemaking, there is no debate that profits will roll in through marketing alone as people seek out eco-friendly wines. So, Miguel, you are dead on that eco-friendly wineries will be the wave of the future, and it will only be a short period of time before the customers begin seeking it out as their way of contributing to the global effort against climate change!
3. Here's the issue with cork and glass. As you know wineries want the security that their wines are safe, which some cork companies have not provided. However, it is indisputable that cork is the most eco-friendly closure we can choose, as cork oak acts as one large carbon sink, unlike screwcaps which simply pump additional carbon into the air. So with cork, there is no argument, but glass on the other hand, is expensive to recycle and requires a considerable amount of water. Additionally, because weighs a considerable amount, it requires more packaging to keep it safe, and it is more expensive to transport because of weight. Hence, the issue as we understand it.
Thanks again and please chime in anytime ;-)
First off, thank you for your lengthy comment. We are big supporters of lengthy comments, because it means that you're willing to dialogue with us, which is the whole point of blogging, no?! So with that, thanks for your short novel and your very appreciated comment on our blog ;-)
In response to your comments, allow me to tackle each one as they were proposed to us at the conference.
1. If there is one message we were able to take away from this conference, it was that there isn't a scientist out there who doesn't agree that the climate is changing. This cannot be debated at this point. What they aren't clear on is whether humans are the cause of this situation, and if so, how can we mitigate it as quickly as possible. That said, because scientists agree that climate change is occurring, adaption is inevitable whether we like it or not. Hence, the continuing sound bites about how wineries can make changes now to prepare for the future. What bothered me was that I wanted more concrete tools of things I could do on a personal level, as a writer and as Spanish resident now to mitigate the problem. So have I walked away with new tools? We'll leave that for our future post ;-)
2. As you may have seen in the following post, there were concerns from wineries that the profit wouldn't outweigh the investment in sustainable winemaking practices. However, if we use the incredible success of both Banrock Station and Torres as examples of leaders in sustainable winemaking, there is no debate that profits will roll in through marketing alone as people seek out eco-friendly wines. So, Miguel, you are dead on that eco-friendly wineries will be the wave of the future, and it will only be a short period of time before the customers begin seeking it out as their way of contributing to the global effort against climate change!
3. Here's the issue with cork and glass. As you know wineries want the security that their wines are safe, which some cork companies have not provided. However, it is indisputable that cork is the most eco-friendly closure we can choose, as cork oak acts as one large carbon sink, unlike screwcaps which simply pump additional carbon into the air. So with cork, there is no argument, but glass on the other hand, is expensive to recycle and requires a considerable amount of water. Additionally, because weighs a considerable amount, it requires more packaging to keep it safe, and it is more expensive to transport because of weight. Hence, the issue as we understand it.
Thanks again and please chime in anytime ;-)
Thanks for your reply.
Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.
I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.
Now for the notes.
1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.
Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.
3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).
M.
ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).
pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?
Thanks for your reply.
Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.
I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.
Now for the notes.
1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.
Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.
3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).
M.
ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).
pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?
Thanks for your reply.
Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.
I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.
Now for the notes.
1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.
Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.
3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).
M.
ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).
pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?
Thanks for your reply.
Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.
I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.
Now for the notes.
1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.
Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
"><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) "><a href="http://www.fetzer.com) " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.
3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
/>
It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).
M.
ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).
pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?
Thanks for your reply.
Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.
I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.
Now for the notes.
1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.
Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)
2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.
3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)
It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).
M.
ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).
pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?
1. Never feel like you have to excuse yourself. I happily accept the times when I am wrong, and this appears to be one of them, but it leaves me confused. Why? Because the above mentioned was repeated more than once. So it leaves me puzzled? Any ideas why were give this message or why there might be debate?
3. I am going to get on the ball here, and see if I can't get a glass expert chatting with us on this issue. I'm extremely curious as well.
PS. NOOOOO, how sad that we were not able to drum him up. But let's see if I can't get him over here to chat with us as well!! If you have any questions for him, let me know, and I'll see what I can do.
And Miguel, thank you for the compliment. I really appreciate it, and we do to try to offer interesting and thought provoking content. Of course, it is also people like yourself willing to step up with their thoughts and opinions that truly make our discussions interesting. Cheers.
1. Never feel like you have to excuse yourself. I happily accept the times when I am wrong, and this appears to be one of them, but it leaves me confused. Why? Because the above mentioned was repeated more than once. So it leaves me puzzled? Any ideas why were give this message or why there might be debate?
3. I am going to get on the ball here, and see if I can't get a glass expert chatting with us on this issue. I'm extremely curious as well.
PS. NOOOOO, how sad that we were not able to drum him up. But let's see if I can't get him over here to chat with us as well!! If you have any questions for him, let me know, and I'll see what I can do.
And Miguel, thank you for the compliment. I really appreciate it, and we do to try to offer interesting and thought provoking content. Of course, it is also people like yourself willing to step up with their thoughts and opinions that truly make our discussions interesting. Cheers.
This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...
It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.
Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.
The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).
Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).
Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!
Cheers.
M.
This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...
It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.
Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.
The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).
Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).
Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!
Cheers.
M.
This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...
It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.
Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.
The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).
Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).
Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!
Cheers.
M.
This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...
It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.
Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.
The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).
Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).
Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!
Cheers.
M.
This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never...
It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.
Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.
The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).
Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics...).
Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write...). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!
Cheers.
M.