Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point,
we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed
support
Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about global warning, so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then".
Stan, this is simply incorrect. There have been at least 2 different GW surveys, and one of them was added to the Wikipedia by someone other than me:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The survey shows an even split among scientists on whether the GW theory is true. This is far from the "consensus" that some GW theory proponents claim exists.
The fact that a survey contradicts the political views of the Clinton administration and of the UN climate panel, should be in the Wikipedia.
...unless, of course, someone genuinely feels that a mean score of 4.8 on a scale from 1 (agree) and 7 (disagree) represents a "consensus" of agreement!
Uncle Ed
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The survey shows an even split among scientists on whether the GW theory is true. This is far from the "consensus" that some GW theory proponents claim exists. ...unless, of course, someone genuinely feels that a mean score of 4.8 on a scale from 1 (agree) and 7 (disagree) represents a "consensus" of agreement!
Thats an horrific and dishonest interpretation of those results.
The question was not "do you believe that GW theory is true", it was "do you trust present climate models over a period of 10 years to succesfully predict INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY" (my stress)
Trends in long term climate do *not* come into the compass of inter-annual variability. That you don't appreciate this... sheesh.
The score for GW as a future event was 2.6 on a 1-7 scale. Already detected GW was 3.3.