Is Too Much Evidence Delaying Action on Climate Change? Climate Skeptics and the OJ Simpson Trial

Have you been frustrated or perplexed lately by how effective global warming skeptics have been at casting doubt on the mountain of evidence that suggests the climate is changing? How about the fact that they are getting away with it? If so, I have an article for you.

In a recent op-ed on Mother Jones, 350.org co-founder and Middlebury College Professor Bill McKibben compares increased confusion about climate change to the OJ Simpson trial, i.e. where a preponderance of evidence wasn't enough to let justice be served.

McKibben says, "Without hard evidence to support their claims, climate denialists are attacking the process of climate-change science." The skeptics' search for the error in the integrity or validity of climate research is like looking for a needle in a haystack. But a bigger haystack means the potential for more needles.

McKibben also stresses how we can't rely on straight science to solve this issue for us, and we need to become more politically savvy in order to convince the American public that this is something they should be concerned about. "Science may be what we know about the world, but politics is how we feel about the world," he says, "And feelings count at least as much as knowledge."

Since McKibben is far more eloquent and well-versed on this issue than I am, I am going to let him do the rest of the talking. Read his full article here. Seriously, click on the link. It's one of the best pieces I've read in recent weeks. I promise you won't be disappointed.