Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to TB the fact is that there is a scientific consensus on this issue...

re: scientific consensus
TB — (archived)

First of all, I don't think you're clear on what the word "consensus" means. Do most scientists in the field agree with your views? Sure they do. I can count.

But is it unanimous? No, it isn't. And when information comes up that casts doubt on the premise, or doubt on the numbers, I'll keep bringing it forward. And claiming that everyone casting doubt on the premise is in the pay of the evil corporations isn't particularly intellectually honest either.

I'm also aware that a scientist that doesn't agree in today's environment, no matter WHAT the dissenting opinion, pretty much can kiss his career goodbye as far as dealing with the major journals and organizations is concerned. I've watched it happen. That does tend to make achieving a consensus a bit easier. Scientists have dropped out of things like the IPCC when they don't like the direction things are going. Eventually, only one set of opinions is left. That makes consensus easier, too. There is more than one way you can look at the concept of peer review.

There ARE areas where legitimate argument can be made, how bad will it be, is the cost of prevention more than what would be gained, what is the best action to take.... etc.

Could have fooled me. You might have noticed I have made some objections to hysterical anti-industrial actions on this issue, and have been soundly ridiculed for it. A recent science paper claimed that we have to shut CO2 emissions down to zero to save ourselves. Any objections here on that other than from me? Even if you accept the human-caused warming at face value, Kyoto was utter crap, and yet objections to the treaty as it stood were treated with equal contempt.

I'll believe in legitimate argument on those things when I see it around here.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (55 posts)