Mario Goveia wrote: > >I did not even address "the science of global warming" as Santosh falsely >>alleges. >
The misconceptions regarding the science of global warming in Mario’s earlier posts are listed at the end of this post. What is important for people to know in that context is the following: 1. Genuine scientific debates and consensus are discussed in professional scientific journals and conferences, not on websites of politicians or in internet petitions. If any scientist disagrees with a scientific issue he publishes his disagreement in a scientific journal. That is the only proper forum for his scientific peers to judge whether his criticisms are valid or not. What is publicized through a politician's website is not science but politics. 2. The claim made by IPCC that its report is based on the work of 2500 scientists, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, is correct. 3. If you search genuine peer-reviewed scientific literature on this topic you will find that, as in the case of evolution and intelligent design/creationism, there is no real debate on the validity and scope of the main scientific claims about climate science. The main claims are: a) Global warming is taking place. b) It is substantially due to an excess of green houses gases released as a result of human activities. c) It is already causing detrimental effects on the environment. d) An urgent reduction of green house gas emissions is necessary to prevent catastrophic effects in the future. Cheers, Santosh LIST OF MISCONCEPTIONS "One of the problems seems to be the overheated claims by some proponents that there is universal "consensus" and the matter is "settled" science, when clearly neither claim is accurate." "The IPCC's claims that thousands of scientists participated in its report has also been challenged as false by scientists who were part of the process." "Remember, the controversy is not whether global warming is taking place, but whether it is being caused by natural phenomena or human activity, and whether reversing or curbing the human activity, specifically CO2 levels, is a) necessary, b) economically harmful to poor countries, and c) going to make any significant difference, even if it can be done at some reasonable cost." "I have limited these examples in the interests of brevity, and only to make the point that the issue is still being furiously debated within the scientific community:" "The only point to be made here is that there are a significant number of scientists who are not yet convinced that the matter is "settled" and that the broad "consensus" being claimed by some, does not yet exist." "However, what I find strange is Santosh's ability to deny that there is a debate going on, and totally ignore the evidence that there are hundreds, if not thousands of reputable and respected scientists that disagree with the scientific opinions of the organizations cited by him."
