> There's been a lot of talk about what is behind the thinking of the
> "skeptics" crowd, kicked off largely by Gavin Schmidt's experience in
> more or less losing a debate:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-t...
The debate was about whether climate change constitutes a crisis, it
wasn't about whether climate sensitivity is closer to 1C or to 10C.
If I was in the crowd, I'd have voted that climate change is not a
crisis.
There were a number of dubious points on the "it's not a crisis" side,
on the other hand, there's this attempt by the other side in the
debate to side step all opposing arguments with a reference to
"scientific consensus", even when the arguments have all to do with
politics and economics and virtually nothing with climate science, and
when there clearly is no scientific consensus about what should be
done about climate change.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
