Sarah and Ecolog: Thanks for your suggestion.
Re: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Again, I apologize if I have failed to make my question clear. I am not contesting whether or not human activities affect climate; my question has to do with the ratio of that activity's effect to the "background" change, the degree of its significance, the trend and its significance, and upon what basis policies and actions (or their lack) rest. There seem to be two "straw-man" fallacies on each pole of this epistemological see-saw: On the one hand, "deniers" claim that since there is uncertainty, more study is needed before action is justified; on the other hand "believers" cite "consensus of expert opinion." I suggest that neither of these is adequate for science. Am I missing something or misinterpreting something? WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah Bray To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:39 AM Subject: Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Dear Wayne, In response to your post on Ecolog, you may be interested in the following essay: Oreskes, M. 2004. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science 306: 1686. Cheers, Sarah Dr. Sarah Bray Assistant Professor of Biology Transylvania University 300 N Broadway Lexington, KY 40508 859-233-8169 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Successfully Scanned by the McAfee SIG 3200 Appliance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.32/2030 - Release Date: 03/30/09 08:40:00
