Most of them are scientist and they gave a crosstalk started on Friday, Jan. 27, with a op-ed signed by 16 authors and titled: “No Need to Panic About Global Warming”.
The reply appeared few days later (on Wednsday, Feb 1) with an article signed by 39 authors claiming the relevance of scientists when talking about climate change and with an eloquent incipit: “Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?”

One point of the discussion, may be the most important, is about the role of science in advising policy and economics. Andrew Revkin, commenting the crosstalk in his New York Time blog Dot Earth, emphasizes what he calls a hard reality: “It will be economic pressures, not scientific findings, that largely determine what the world’s nations do, or don’t do, to limit the flow of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from fuel burning”. And then Andrew Revkin reports about some economists reactions to the discussion launched by WSJ.

But among Revkin’s remarks, there is something else that, we think, deserves to be considered by specialized and general public. With regard to the Wall Street Journal dispute, the NYTimes’ journalist and blogger draws our attention on a point that may be crucial to understand the media coverage on climate change and the way climate scientists and experts are using the media in order to make public opinion aware of climate change. “Both manifestos illustrate the lure and hazards of arguing from the edges – Andrew Revkin writes – It’s always easier to cast an opponent in stark, caricatured terms. But society loses out in the resulting din”. Standing right in the middle of arguing opponents, how can public opinion get balanced and
reliable information to understand climate change?

Picture credits: Flickr CC at NS Newsflash