Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
I believe he has extensive understanding of it, but I'm confused by his rhetoric because his focus upon "consensus" as to cause.
If he's focusing upon his trade journals, then there may be a quasi-consensus among the vocal minority. If that is the "feeling" he's trying to convey, then I understand.
However, if one surveys as a layperson, ignorant of the actual science, but capable of reading what trends the literature suggest, other than an acknowledgment that climactic change is occurring, man's contributions seem indeterminable. And Seattle's insert appears to me to be the reality of the science. It's politics, not science to promote an agenda that may result in some good, but at what cost?
|
I am saying that the fact that someone got 31,000 people to sign a petition says nothing about overall consensus among the top-level scientists actually studying the issue. What is the background of these 31,000 people? How was the petition worded? One of the people they quote is a medical doctor. How many of these folks actually have the technical expertise to properly analyze the data and studies?
That's why I think the article is deceptive.