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
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:
- There is no scientific consensus. They just made it up. The IPCC's
contributors, when polled, were split 50-50
Are you talking about the SEPP survey? Of 71 IPCC panel members polled, only 15 responded, and the respondees were entirely self selected. It's questionable that such a sample may be thought of as representative. Wearing my other hat, thats just not good statistics.
If you were an environmental scientist whose scientific opinion supported anthropogenic global warming, would *you* respond to a survey run by an organisation dedicated to discrediting your work?
Show me an poll run by a reputable independent polling company (Gallup or MORI, say), and I'll give the results some credence.
on whether human-caused emissions were contributing to GW.
The sentence with which they agreed was: "it is not possible to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming [of 0.5 degree Celsius since 1890] to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of observational data currently available."
Firstly, that sentence appears in the IPCC report. Secondly, however you paint it, that is not the same thing as "whether human-caused emissions were contributing to GW."
- 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.
That's true. They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
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?