[WikiEN-l] Enviornmentalism vs. Science (was: William Connolley a rational contributor)

[The Cunctator]

On 11/25/03 10:57 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
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?