October 10, 2005
The Seattle Times ran a front-page Sunday article on the scientific consensus behind manmade climate change -- probably one of the better summaries of the central issues written for lay readers. Here's my favorite paragraph:
As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
Plus, four short corollary articles clarify the debates about those prickly rejoinders you may have heard skeptics employ: the sun's effect, the "hocky stick" graph, the urban heat-island effect, and complicated satellite readings.
Posted by Eric de Place | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Climate Consensus:
Imagine we did everything by consensus...the earth would still be the center of the universe!
A great article on the dangers of scientific consensus written almost a year ago.
Posted by: Jeremy Brown | Oct 14, 2005 9:09:54 AM
That's a conflated argument, Jeremy, and not very well made.
1. The number and percentage of scientists that agree that AGW is occurring is such that there is a consensus.
2. Activists state that the science is clear on climate change and therefore we should do X,Y, and Z.
3. The author cautions spending too much money on litigation due to A,B, and C and those ideas are bad because we should be careful of science by popularity contest.
This is a talking point. Nothing more.
Scientific findings are not altered because conclusions are popular, and nowhere in that blog entry (or anywhere for that matter) can it be shown that a paper was written or conclusion was made because something was popular.
The conclusion was made on a false premise with no evidence to back the assertion.
Posted by: Dan Staley | Oct 14, 2005 12:49:05 PM