12-10-2008, 01:13 PM
mattkime wrote:
>>Whatever else we can say about the science, there clearly is not a consensus
No, there is a very wide consensus. The lack of consensus comes largely from unscience and industry.
I will try again, although I am sure this is hopeless. Maybe you don't understand what consensus means: consensus means everyone agrees. So your statement itself is nonsensical. There clearly are scientists that are skeptical or questioning; given the political environment and the intense pressure over this issue, many skeptics are likely remaining silent. Here is an example of an article predicting an ice age. Note that this person is a scientist and a former NASA astronaut. He misstates some of the facts and this is an opinion piece, not an academic article, and maybe he is a wingnut in the end, but the general points he makes, that we can't adequately explain the role of sun activity remains true:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...%2C00.html
If you were to say that the evidence "predicts" GW based on a rise in CO2 caused by humans, or that "most" scientists believe that, and that is a valid basis to make change in social and economic policy, that may very well be true. But to claim that there is a "consensus" or that there is no valid basis for scientific debate is 1) politically motivated, and 2) false.