Denialism

A number of prominent climate scientists representing the scientific consensus on climate change, as documented by the IPCC, have tried their best to convey the message in public forums, but were mostly shunned by conservative media. At the same time many climate scientists tend to regard the IPCC-based climate consensus as too optimistic. An article titled When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job (Richardson, 2015) states … “Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it … Climate scientists have been so distracted and intimidated by the relentless campaign against them that they tend to avoid any statements that might get them labelled “alarmists”, instead retreating into a world of charts and data.“

As stated by Noam Chomsky: “It’s interesting that these public climate debates leave out almost entirely a third part of the debate, namely a very substantial number of scientists, competent scientists, who think that the scientific consensus is much too optimistic. A group of scientists at MIT came out with a report about a year ago describing what they called the most comprehensive modelling of the climate that had ever been done. 

Their conclusion, which was unreported in public media as far as I know, was that the major scientific consensus of the international commission is just way off, it’s much too optimistic … their own conclusion was that unless we terminate use of fossil fuels almost immediately, it’s finished. We’ll never be able to overcome the consequences. That’s avoided in the debate.”

The global burden of long covid has put a spotlight on the long neglected mystery of postviral syndromes. Brian Owens asks what’s changing