>> But to call this issue controversial is dubious as there is very little
>> controversy among climatologists. I don't have exact figures, but the
>> massive majority of climate scientists believe global warming will
>> happen.
>
>Without sources, it can be just as easily argued, a massive majority of climate
>scientists _don't_ support global warming. Anecdotal does not equal evidence.
OTOH, if you'll PMFBI, it's not necessary to take other people's anecdotes; why not
make one's own? Rather than debate which sources to believe as to the
consensus, one can look at the evidence on that, as well as on other issues.
At any good research library in the world one can go and look at a handful of
recent issues of the magazine named _Science_, which along with _Nature_ is one
of the two most prestigious refereed journals of general science in the
English-speaking [an unnecessary qualifier] world. (Its prestige is such that the
publishers have expressed concern with the weight that tenure decisions in
developing countries put on getting one's name in those two journals; they think
that there are better bases for decision than a free-for-all to get published in two
magazines.) Look at _Nature_ too, while you're there; I can't tell you what's in it
because I don't have time, or my bookshelves the capacity, to subscribe to both.
The front section of _Science_ has material of general interest, at a level
understandable to scientists reading outside their specialties and (usually) to
anyone with some scientific literacy. Flip through this material, prepared by
scientists for scientists, and you'll often find material on climate change; from it you
can judge where the debate on climate change (misnamed global warming in the
press) stands. Don't let the unrefereed front-matter guys get away with anything:
check the specifics by looking at the related refereed papers in the back.
Here's what I predict you'll find: it's a serious issue, and disagreement is mainly
about how serious the problem is, not whether there is one. But don't take my
word for it.
None of that will *prove* anything about a scientific consensus; the editors may be
selective. Some people say they are. But it will be sobering to anyone who
honestly wonders how seriously the matter should be taken. It should forever cure
one of listening to glib arguments that assume (or assert) that the people talking
about climate change just don't understand what they're doing, and are missing
obvious considerations.
By the way, the consensus argument is already out of fashion. (*) It's just too
hard to support; in fact, the Bush administration seems to have given up on it in the
past year. What's up to date: Michael Crichton's addresses and essays on why
scientific consensus is a bunch of crap. (His stuff is third-rate tendentious history of
science, based on anecdotes as to which there is not historical consensus, but hey,
it's entertaining to his fans.)
(*) The glib simple arguments that try to refute climate change in a few words as a
silly misconception are even farther out of date: they belong to the Nineties effort
to brand cc as Junk Science, which is quite hopeless.
-- Dan Drake dd at dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com/