Science vs skeptic blogger.....
Originally Posted by Goshin
"...In 2011 sceptics welcomed the Berkeley Earth Science Temperature project, partly funded by the Charles Koch’s foundation, because it promised to address “the five major concerns that global warming sceptics had identified” in the temperature record.
A prominent ‘sceptic’ blogger, Anthony Watts, declared: “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong”.
However, when the Berkeley project produced similar results to the Met Office and other meteorological organisations, Watts and other ‘sceptics’ rejected the findings...."
So yes, it's better if the viewpoint on climate change is based on science instead of opinion.
Scepticism over rising temperatures? Lord Lawson peddles a fake controversy | Environment | The Guardian
I don't think that article means what you think it means. After a lengthy synopsis of all the arguments for and against climate change, the author concludes that framing the climate change debate around risk management would be a good way to get insurance and financial companies on board with climate change regulations promoted by the IPCC.....
"...Yet this dissension, declining public interest, and political intransigence may be immaterial. A potential, yet so far unused discursive opportunity to ‘broker’ between pro-regulation frames and ‘economic responsibility’ may lie in a more comprehensive (i.e., including financial) understanding of risk (Hoffman, 2011b). Nagel (2011) discusses how the insurance and reinsurance industry is supremely concerned about exposure to financial risks associated with extreme weather events. The US military is concerned about security risks associated with ‘population displacements, increased potential for failed states and terrorism, potential escalation of conflicts over resources’ (Nagel, 2011, p. 206). Risk management is of fundamental concern to all – including energy – companies, insurance and finance industries, military and other government agencies. Professional engineers and geoscientists (and lawyers, accountants, corporate officers, etc.) are in the business of managing risk. Indeed, engineers have recognized these risks, been working behind the scenes, and revised the Canadian Building Codes to adapt to the changing climate. As our analysis of the different storylines shows, reframing climate change as a risk to be managed – as has been promoted by the IPCC in their recent report (IPCC, 2011) – has the discursive potential to provide a bridge (Snow et al., 1986) to integrate various frames (except ‘fatalists’ who seem generally apathetic) and inject a legitimate diagnosis, established prognoses, identity scripts, and motivational consensus.
The insurance companies, the US military and the Pope believe climate change is real.