> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of James Heartfield
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:13 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Global Warming
>
>
> In message <NDBBKPODIHENIECLLPBIMECBCBAA.kmack at dimensional.com>, Kenneth
> Mack <kmack at dimensional.com> writes
>
> >The scientific consensus though is quite clear. Though there is a
> >small and vocal (and well paid) minority of scientists who completely
> >discount the theory, the vast majority of scientists who have in depth
> >knowledge of the field agree that humans are having a
> discernible influence
> >on climate.
>
> If the consensus is contested, then its not a consensus.
>
A consensus need not be universally accepted. I know of a scientist who claims that there is evidence to show that astrology is predictive of peoples lives and why. Would you then claim there is no consensus among scientists that astrology is bunk? An overwhelming majority of scientists who have training in the particulars of climate, atmospheres, ecosystems, etc agree that humans are having a discernable influence on climate. Enough of a majority to call it a consensus. In science you will find no theory unchallenged, that does not preclude the possibility of a consensus.
I'm not claiming that there aren't politics being played. I'm sure there are. What cannot be said is that global warming theory is false. Sorry, the physics are against you. The REAL scientific question is how does one add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere without affecting the radiative balance of the earth?
>
> >Can you offer some reference or idea of how you came to these
> conclusions. I
> >just don't see it.
>
> Can you re-phrase the question?
>
I would like to know what evidence and thought you drew on to come to these conclusions. I see one piece was from the Wall Street Journal. I would claim that the WSJ is not a good source for understanding this subject.
> --
> James Heartfield
>