Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* Frank Boettcher wrote, On 3/30/2007 1:22 PM:
Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the less, a consensus. Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular population. That is only one definition, if you check a modern dictionary you'll probably find "majority" listed as the first definition. Usually obtained by compromise. That might be the way of politics, not science. That would be like saying that if half people believe in evolution, and half believe in creationism, then the consensus is intelligent design. Some members may not fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion. That is not what we have here on either side of the argument. No. That is exactly what we have in the scientific community. While there a a few high profile skeptics, as there should be, they are often not experts in climate. Further, they have published very little "denials" in the academic world. Here's what one survey had to say: "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). "The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 There is one reviewer, Benny Peiser, was skeptical and tried to reproduce this study. At first, it appeared that he had found major flaws, but after going around for a few years, he conceded: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous." and, to be fair, he concludes with "Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons." http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So where is...................... | General | |||
Hurricane Storage Asho A Surveyors View | Cruising | |||
Metric readout on Humminbird Wide View | Electronics | |||
Can We STOP IT??? | ASA |