12-10-2008, 02:42 PM
>>Maybe you don't understand what consensus means: consensus means everyone agrees.
Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus General agreement. Exactly what I meant. But I'm not looking to argue over definitions but you did bring it up.
>>given the political environment and the intense pressure over this issue, many skeptics are likely remaining silent.
I simply don't see any evidence of that despite the repeated assertions.
>>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
He's a former NASA engineer but has no background in studying the climate. I really don't understand how incorrect facts can lead to an accurate conclusion. The whole article is trash. The corresponding response -
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html
>>But to claim that there is a "consensus" or that there is no valid basis for scientific debate
There is a difference between consensus and valid basis for scientific debate. i'm _not_ saying that we should stop studying climate change! scientific debate can continue along side consensus. this is how science operates.
---
#1 and #2 undoubtedly true. i don't understand how you hesitate at #3. we have plenty of historical data.
Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus General agreement. Exactly what I meant. But I'm not looking to argue over definitions but you did bring it up.
>>given the political environment and the intense pressure over this issue, many skeptics are likely remaining silent.
I simply don't see any evidence of that despite the repeated assertions.
>>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
He's a former NASA engineer but has no background in studying the climate. I really don't understand how incorrect facts can lead to an accurate conclusion. The whole article is trash. The corresponding response -
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html
>>But to claim that there is a "consensus" or that there is no valid basis for scientific debate
There is a difference between consensus and valid basis for scientific debate. i'm _not_ saying that we should stop studying climate change! scientific debate can continue along side consensus. this is how science operates.
---
#1 and #2 undoubtedly true. i don't understand how you hesitate at #3. we have plenty of historical data.