On 11/25/03 10:57 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Ed > It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of Ed > environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side
with
Ed > Singer.
Cunctator replied to Ed:
Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer.
Mere POV.
This is one of the most common arguments of enviromentalists. They claim their position on GW is "the scientific position", hence anyone who disagrees with their position is "unscientific".
They bolster this position with their incessantly repeated claim that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of GW theory.
There are 2 logical errors with this POV, either of which is sufficient to demolish it. Anyway, it's their POV and should be labelled as such in Wikipedia articles, which is all I've ever asked for.
- There is no scientific consensus. They just made it up. The IPCC's
contributors, when polled, were split 50-50 on whether human-caused emissions were contributing to GW.
I'm TALKING ABOUT CFCs and the OZONE LAYER, not GLOBAL WARMING!
Stop changing the subject.
Even Singer has admitted he was wrong. Why don't you?