No, using some mistake that was actually caught later by scientists and admitted as a mistake as proof that the whole of climate science is wrong; or selecting one scientist and his findings (like Mann and his tree ring data) to say the whole of climate science is wrong. That is abusing science, esp since ACC was well established before Mann’s works and before the glacier mistake. And esp since Mann is not wrong – but it has been very wrong for denialist to lob death threats at him and his young child.
The difference between a skeptic and a denialist is this: a skeptic has some legitimate questions about some theory and is willing to listen to what the scientists say re his/her ideas that put the theory in doubt, and accept what the scientists say if they address those doubts adequately. And ALL such doubts (and red herrings and strawmen and Rush Limbaugh craziness) about ACC have been addressed adequately again and again and again – so there really are very few skeptics on this issue, only those who have not paid much attention and have not yet engaged the climate scientists. I think there may have been some skeptics as late as 2006, but after that, they are pretty much all denialists.
A denialist, OTOH, is one who will never accept the science no matter what. There are those who reject evolution and/or anthropogenic climate change who will never ever change their views no matter what evidence and science is presented to them. They are ideologically wedded to their positions. And bec they know people in general respect science, they cloak their counter-hypotheses in the garb of science and create “fake-science” so as to deceive people.
My own position is that I accept what the climate scientists say, knowing they are reticent in their claims and it might be worse than what they say, and also knowing that there is a less than 5% chance they are wrong.
While I do sincerely hope they are wrong (it would be really great if they were wrong), I behave and act as if they are right, and mitigate ACC to the best of my ability. And I’ve found to our surprise it is saving us a lot of money, without reducing living standards, while we have now reduced our GHGs by more than 60% below our 1990 emissions. I’m not even counting the fact that we have been living within 1 or 2 miles of work, which we have been doing for the past 43 years to save finite resources for future generations (which also helps mitigate ACC), bec that was initially done for a different reason.
Since JPII, BXVI, and the US Catholic bishops agree with that position of prudence (as I’m sure Pope Francis does too, who has background in chemistry and would have ability to understand that greenhouse gas molecules absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas ) – that ACC is a serious problem and it is everyone’s responsibility to mitigate it (even if one is not totally sold on the science) – it’s extremely hard for me to understand why so many Catholics should be skeptics and denialists at this point in the process, 18 years after science reached 95% confidence on ACC (.05 on the null). I do understand that our media, educational system, and gov have been pretty much complicit in this denialism over the decades, but that’s not a complete excuse.
It seems the skeptics and denialists neither want to reduce their risk of harming others (they do not even want to countenance the idea that maybe there is a 50%, even a 10% chance the scientists are correct) nor collect on the great financial savings to be had by mitigating. I guess that could be called “super-denialism” and abuse of science by totalling ignoring the science & its implications, and fishing for whatever fake-science the well-oiled denialist industry spews out that they can find to justify their position. It is totally flabberghasting to me. God gave us brains and a heart, and hope of salvation (and nothing, not even death, to fear), and we should not be afraid to use these faculties and graces and seek out the real truth on matters.
I’d thought back in 1990 that all I had to do was mitigate ACC to the best of our ability (my husband didn’t want to sacrifice, so we’ve done it without sacrificing our lifestyle), and then inform a few others about the problem and great savings in mitigating it, and they’d inform others until the whole world would be mitigating. And I could within a few months get back to my regularly scheduled life. It has been a rude awakening over 23 years of how obstinately opposed to reducing the risk of harm the world really is, even among front-pewers in my own church. After years of banging my head against this brick wall of derelict obstinance, I had decided to just keep quiet on the issue & just live in sorrow holding Our Lady in my heart that my pitiful efforts without those of most other people would not amount to much help. We don’t have children, so it was no skin off my personal nose if the world was determined to wipe out much, perhaps all, of life on earth over the next 100s, 1000s or 100,000 years. Then the reading in Mass that exact same week was, if you know your brother is doing some sin and you fail to inform him, the sin falls back on you.
So in my old age until my very last breath I will continue to bang my head against this brick wall of obstinate resistance and inform people that ACC is real and dangerous to life, and mitigating it will greatly benefit one and the world.
Sorry if I’m a bother to people here. I have to do it. As a Christian, I have no choice.
– and I’ve always had a great deal of respect for physical scientists…was even planning on going into physics at one time, or become a large animal vet. And I’ve always been a Christian close to God, so it is possible to be both Christian and a social scientist.