Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Sources for a consensus? I thought this was already common knowledge, but okay. Try van den Hove (2003); Oreskes (2004); and Kintishch, Eli (2009). I'm not asserting the consensus is right, only that there is a consensus. To me, the data are more important.
|
It's your use of terms like overwhelming that caused me to be curious as to just how many scientists there were that composed this "overwhelming concensus". Hence my query.
Quote:
|
From a scientific perspective, I see this as a more accurate term and as a strength of science that it's willing to accept conclusions provisionally. You should be more worried if the scientific consensus was unwilling to change or adapt with better data and understanding.
|
That's one way of spinning it. Frankly, I think that as the term "global warming" was becoming too controversial a moniker, they opted for another term. Science adapted, but more to the political realities than the scientific ones.
Quote:
|
Yes. I am. I would, however, point out that, given your rhetoric above which irrationally criticizes the provisional nature of science, your own bias is clear. Since it is, I'm curious: what motivates a bias against the premise that climate change is happening or is accelerated by human activity?
|
Nice piece of rhetoric yourself. I'm not irrationally criticizing the "provisional nature of science", but don't buy the spin for the name change either. I don't state anywhere that the climate is static, so you're making quite a leap.