Los sesgos del contra-consenso eco-alarmista

Abstract

Supported by a previous article in the Debate section, Grau (2023) proposes five groups of topics that challenge positions presumably established in the community of ecologists and environmentalists. Based on an analysis of the concepts and logic used in the proposal, I identified a weakness in the essay regarding its formulation, which results in a simplification of the premises and arguments. This weakness arises from a lack of information regarding the methodology used to elaborate what the author calls consensus, which constitutes the basis on which counter-consensus are later built. I believe that, far from opening a broad and comprehensive debate on the subject—one that would illuminate new horizons of knowledge and its influence on public debate, as well as the concomitant resolution of current problems—, the essay leads readers into a trap where the proposal blocks its own exit. His argument is exhausted within the very space from which the problem originates; that is, a space of dispute where a group argues with itself rather than engaging in an exhaustive and comprehensive debate about the complexity of the challenges and the diversity of approaches, knowledge, and proposals currently available. To conclude, I propose a critical reflection, emphasizing the need for a broader call to the available scientific knowledge, which would allow us to move beyond the simplicity of an unproductive dichotomy.