Ajax wrote on Oct 19
th, 2013 at 9:26am:
Phemanderac wrote on Oct 19
th, 2013 at 7:23am:
Ajax wrote on Oct 18
th, 2013 at 9:45pm:
We don't need another political group like the IPCC.
What we need is scientists from both sides to come to some sort of an agreement of whether or not AGW is real and if it needs mitigating.
Get the IPCC and all other political bodies OUT...!!!
So, in short, we need a consensus.
Not at all........!!!!
Scientists from both sides using science to determine if indeed AGW is a real threat to the whole planet.
No political bodies whatsoever.
Everything gets layed out on the table including things like Mann's computer program of the hockey stick.
No stone is left unturned.
"
con·sen·sus
[kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA
noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
1.
majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1850–55; < Latin, equivalent to consent ( īre ) to be in agreement, harmony ( con- con- + sentīre to feel; cf. sense) + -tus suffix of v. action
Can be confused: census, consensus (see usage note at the current entry).
Usage note
Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion. The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus is objected to for similar reasons."
You did say, some sort of an agreement initially.
That said. I think that there are many who would and do argue that science has in fact done this, please understand that is an observation and not an opinion. I acknowledge that there are many who would say they haven't.
Of course, for what you suggest to actually occur that would mean a whole lot of non scientists who have a huge investment now in this debate would be out of the picture. Of itself that might not be such a bad thing.
And of course, the other significant barrier to your suggestion is that scientific research relies on funding at some level. Demonstrably the funding body can have an immense impact on the final findings, whether that is Government funding or a private industry. I think this is why the peer reviewed system is generally relied on, because that requires a bit of a "consensus" from a number of scientists who, by virtue of being a group, have a more widely varied range of "funders". Admittedly it is still not fool proof, but then anything with people involved is generally not going to be fool proof, possibly because our one consistency is a demonstrated capacity to produce fools (an observation, not a slight or comment about anyone particularly).
Arguably, that does not give much support for simply dumping the IPCC because having been discredited presently at least is merely opinion. It will always depend on who you talk to as to how much credibility either the IPCC has, or its detractors. That is what stands out in this entire debate to me. Neither side on the coal face at least appears particularly respectful of the other team, or their views, perspectives or even the information they have relied on to reach their conclusions.
This entire debate has occurred several times in our recent history and, sadly, the stand out thing is that the real underlying issue is about making money. I would directly site the tobacco industry and the struggle to convince people about the now accepted harmful effects of carcinogenic substances used in tobacco products, Asbestos and the now accepted and demonstrable harm that can do and Lead in petrol and a range of other "consumable" products as three prime examples of the power of making money trumping that old chestnut scientific understanding, at least for a while. They are prime examples though of demonstrably harmful human interactions that, in effect, were allowed to propagate because of the huge amounts of money they could generate and, even in the face of pointed and seemingly irrefutable evidence, were able to argue some campaign to protect their profits over human health.
Now, AGW may or may not be the next "tobacco/lead/asbestos" on the table, I don't know. I am concerned (and apologies for any offense that this comment causes) that the debate is shaping up the same as all three of the above ones. The significant difference here it would seem though is that, if AGW is in fact real and if we are harming our environment critically, then it won't be individuals dying horribly from Cancer, Asbestosis or Lead poisoning (as disgusting as that is) but entire nations potentially, entire species including our own even - yeah I know that is an absolute worst case scenario (at least one has to hope it is).
Forum
Pages: 1 
