[geeks] Global Warming causes...

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Dec 1, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote:

>> You know this how?
>
> Know what?  That there isn't unanimity?  Because some scientists
> disagree.  That there is consensus?  Because the majority (more than  
> two
> thirds, according to what I've read) agree.

Two thirds of what scientists?

The ones who the media interviews?

No doubt.

In Tidewater, 2/3 of the police interviewed by the media report a  
"consensus" that there is no gang activity.

The reason is simple: the cities and the news have a vested interest  
in saying it isn't a problem, even though nearly all police officers  
and a good number of citizens know otherwise.

Consensus via news media or published articles is a popularity  
contest, not a metric.

I used to work in an atmospheric research data center, and I read a  
lot of the publish reports.

There was no consensus at all, and a good number of them reported  
cosmic radiation, natural disasters, and orbit variation as larger  
factors in global temperature.

The main reason you don't hear about those other factors is that they  
are not popular.  They don't sell ads, they aren't boogymen, they have  
no emotional appeal, and it requires real work rather than knee jerk  
reactionism to cope with it.

People like to focus on things where they can say, "Let's fix it."

Factors out of our control, we aren't as willing to talk about.

In the end, we do precious little about either.




-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com