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.
1. 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.
2. Even if an overwhelming majority of people believe something, this doesn't make it true. All the experts were against Copernicus, until one solitary observer (Galileo) pointed his telescope at the Jupiter and discovered 4 moons revolving around it.
The POV that the debate is "science" vs. the skeptics might be held by the editors of ''Scientific American'' magazine, but that is a popular magazine for laymen, with a long history of taking political stances on scientific issues. SciAm is hardly representative of the world's scientists.
Uncle Ed