SEARCH BLOG: POLITICALLY CORRECT and GLOBAL WARMING
The major issue of "global warming" is not whether it is or is not occurring (although one could ask if a 30-year downward trend followed by the current 30-year upward trend is a "trend" or "oscillation"), but what are all of the human influences on any climate change and what can and should be done to manage it.
A couple of the issues I have "discussed" at other sites include questions about the accuracy of the data from decades ago which is being compare with today's data, the consistency of data being collected over the past decade or even day-to-day, and the influence of land use changes, as the human population has doubled, on regional climates... and, hence, the impact on the data that would have been gathered from those regions as the land uses changed.Most comments in response to those questions are that the questions are totally irrelevant because there is a "consensus".
For those who failed English, "consensus" does not necessarily mean "unanimity" or even "agreement". The way it is used in this arena simply means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned "... in other words, it represents a majority of opinion.
Consensus, therefore doesn't necessarily mean "all the facts." In science, at best it means that there is "evidence." It also means that there is some degree of "disputing evidence." Those who dispute the "consensus" must do so on the basis of rigorous study, not faith such as those who want "intelligent design" considered as an alternative to evolution. The disputer or skeptics or minority must have measureable, test-worthy alternative positions.This is not necessarily the case with economics or social sciences or politics. Here, "expert" opinion is sometimes all that is relied upon... by those who feel comfortable with that opinion. Selective facts are the basis for opinions and, often, policies. Thus, those who have selected facts from consensus positions are those who want to disregard other facts as they form their opinions. Here, in the political arena, the "consensus" on global warming is interpreted by some as "we must take immediate and drastic action now to avoid disaster within the next 50 years."
Some responses are even less well thought out than a simple dismal of the questions as being irrelevant. From the Economist's View:
*****I'm fairly certain that the comment about "situational science" came as a result of the "Doonesbury" comics... see Jan. 14, 2007. It all goes back to my earlier post.
I guess you're in favor of "situational science".
Ah, "situational science"....
It's science if "my" scientists interpret data one way and situational science if "your" scientists interpret it another.
That's about the same as saying "peer reviewed" is only valid if I accept the pronouncements of "my" scientists, but "peer reviewed" means "irrational skeptics" if they are "your" scientists.
Let's not get into the "Intelligent Design" arena which is not a matter of scientific interpretation of data... or even different data sets... but rather "belief" versus "scientific methodology".
It's those kinds of insinuations that reflect the "religious ferver" of the "true believers" of anthropogenic-driven global warming... and leads to the next step of demanding that billions of dollars be spent in a unilateral (U.S./Europe - "developing" world exempt) effort to "undo" man-made global warming now... because we can't wait for the data to be thoroughly examined and move from the football-poll "consensus" approach to "scientific agreement." Remember, you are supposed to be addressing issues of "hard science", not economics as the basis for making economic decisions.