[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 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",

I was rather alarmed to see the opening statement of the ice sheet group:

"Polar ice experts from Europe and the United States, meeting *to pursue 
greater scientific consensus*"

(my emphasis)

http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/rels/032807.html

I hope it was just clumsy wording, but unfortunately climate scientists 
are so embattled that they do sometimes seem to strive rather harder to 
agree with each other than to debate their differences. Of course it is 
the latter that actually helps to progress knowledge. The famous "cannot 
be excluded" of the IPCC seems a deliberate attempt to present a 
disagreement as if it is an agreement.

I note that it was explicitly on the grounds that the "consensus" 
disagreed with me that a Nature editor refused to consider our comment 
to the effect that the method used in recent paper was faulty (and 
biased in a strongly alarmist direction). I agree with her judgement 
that the method is widely used, but IMO that makes it more, not less, 
important that its failings are openly discussed.

> 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.

I'm not very well-read but I had the impression that there was really 
quite a strong consensus that modest mitigation was sensible 
(Tol/Nordhaus/Yohe etc, even without going as far as Stern). Are there 
serious claims that we should do nothing at all, or do you consider this 
range of views already to be broad enough as to consist of "no 
scientific consensus"? Of course I'm sure they all disagree to some 
extent about the detailed implementation.

James

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to