Alan,
We should not bother disputing dead issues like the Flat Earth hypothesis. Everybody already knows that mainstream science has held that the earth is ball-shaped for centuries. Say rather that Joe Bloggs believes the "discredited [[flat earth]] hypothesis", or simply that Bloggs believes in a [[flat earth]]. I assume your Joe Bloggs is an athlete or actor, or someone equally clueless about science.
But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted "consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree; therefore, there is no consensus.
So we should divide scientists, scientific agencies, and political entities into: (a) those that assert GW theory is true, and (b) those that assert that GW theory lacks sufficient proof
I'm labelling William Connolley as one of the pro-GW camp, along with the UN's climate panel and the Clinton administration's EPA. Lindzen, Balunias and others get labelled anti-GW because of their skepticism.
What could be simpler?
Ed Poor
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:26:43 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
Alan,
We should not bother disputing dead issues like the Flat Earth hypothesis. Everybody already knows that mainstream science has held that the earth is ball-shaped for centuries. Say rather that Joe Bloggs believes the "discredited [[flat earth]] hypothesis", or simply that Bloggs believes in a [[flat earth]]. I assume your Joe Bloggs is an athlete or actor, or someone equally clueless about science.
But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted "consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree; therefore, there is no consensus.
So we should divide scientists, scientific agencies, and political entities into: (a) those that assert GW theory is true, and (b) those that assert that GW theory lacks sufficient proof
I'm labelling William Connolley as one of the pro-GW camp, along with the UN's climate panel and the Clinton administration's EPA. Lindzen, Balunias and others get labelled anti-GW because of their skepticism.
What could be simpler?
Ed Poor
Being honest is far simpler than the course of equivication and double-talk you have chosen Ed. Please cease to engange as an editor and on this mailing list as an advocate for a position and organization supported by the Moon cult.
Fred
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:
But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
Ed, will you drop this. You don't know what you're talking about.
There is not unanimity, there is however, certainly a massive majority of informed scientific opinion that believes in anthropogenic. I don't know whether consensus require unanimity, but that *is* the present majority belief. They may be wrong, but thats what most environmental scientists believe. Trust me, I work in the area.
To state otherwise is to be totally out of touch with the scientific literature.
What could be simpler?
The fact that you persistently and erroneously exaggerate the size of the anti-camp within the scientific community -- mainly due to their hefty funding, loud voices and desire to appear iconoclasts.
On 11/24/03 at 04:26 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
But in the debate over the environment, there is no consensus. Some scientists think one thing, while others think another. The viewpoint of the UN's climate panel, which was a plank in the Democratic Party's campaign, is that THERE IS A CONSENSUS FAVORING GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.
However, this is merely a politically motivated claim. The asserted "consensus" does not exist. Many prominent scientists disagree; therefore, there is no consensus.
and on 11/24/03 at 05:12 PM he said:
The only relation to global warming is the similarity in how the two ideas have been handled. In both cases:
- There was never any scientific consensus.
- Politicians rushed in, urging quick action.
This is complete and utter nonsense. In Europe, the debate is closed, it is no even longer considered controversial. Global warming is considered a given, and low-lying countries like Holland are considering in practical terms what they will need to do to protect themselves as sea levels rise ten or twenty of fifty centimeters over the next century. Although no one pretends to understand the mechanism in all its detail, it is accepted as a fact that the main cause of GW is burning fossil fuels, and as such there is increasing interest in alternative sources of energy like wind power.
In Europe as well as other parts of the world, the issue in American is not perceived as it is in Ed's parochial vision as one of the Dems vs the Repubs. Rather, we see BOTH the Ds and the Rs as intellectually dishonest cowards beholden to corporate money who are not willing to jeopardize their necks by telling their countrypeople they can no longer drive their gas-guzzling SUVs.
This issue is not driven by politicians as Ed suggests, it is driven by COMMON SENSE.
V.