When I was a boy, I came up with the (not so original) idea of putting generators on the front wheels of a car and using the electricity they produced to power electric motors on the rear wheels, thereby propelling the car down the road without any additional energy source. Although I was soon disabused of this idea by my increasing knowledge of the laws of physics and the data from many failed attempts at implementing my idea, and even though this is settled science in 99.9 percent of the scientific community, the U.S. Patent Office still receives several proposals each year of a similar nature from individuals with what look to be credible scientific credentials.
Similarly, Congressman Akin's recent claims that women who are raped have little likelihood of becoming pregnant is a piece of scientific falsehood that was initially proposed by Dr. John Willke, a physician active in the anti-abortion movement. The process by which Mr. Akin adopted Dr. Willke's mistaken premise is becoming all too familiar in our country. In this process one first decides what position one wants to support, and then one looks for science supporting that position. And while science is science, humans are still human and if one looks hard enough he or she can usually find something that meets the need. In this case, the scientific community is in 99 percent agreement that Dr. Willke's premise is false, and there is ample scientific evidence against his claim, but Congressman Akin selected this one outlying opinion to reinforce his belief that abortions should be banned even when resulting from rape.
Global climate change is another, even more disturbing, example. Even though the National Academies of Science of all the major industrialized nations are in agreement that the average temperature around the world is rising and that the most significant cause is the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere caused by recent human activity, there are many for whom this conclusion is not the desired one. As a result, many of them look for the very few (and declining in number) scientists with contrary opinions to argue that the jury is still out on this issue and that we can therefore continue to conduct business as usual. In this case, conducting business as usual may be convenient for some, but it could be catastrophic for our children and grandchildren.
I would encourage all of us, especially those of us trained in science and engineering, to stand up against this use of "selectable science," regardless of our political views or party affiliation. The ability of humans to draw scientific conclusions based on the preponderance of evidence is a mark of our intelligence, and while scientific theories are frequently updated and occasionally discarded on the basis of new evidence, our course will be best set by using the best available scientific evidence at the time we make decisions.
a: Makes them feel good or
b: Makes them money or
c: Is sent to them by their cousin Jethro in an email
You have chosen an example from the medical arts. So the medical Doctors got the science wrong for a number of years on bacterium in the stomach lining therefore....... therefore what?
You have selected one anecdote from a completely different and unrelated field to fire against the National Academies of Science of all the major industrialized nations on an important topic related to the chemistry and physics of climate.
You have taken an anecdote about some or most medical specialists in one field having overestimated the anti-bacterial properties of stomach acid and are trying to do what with that...?? conflate it into something equivalent to the combined analysis of most of the world's most knowledgeable scientists in atmospheric physics?
You are doing exactly what the article pleaded for you not to do. You are giving wiggle room "for the very few (and declining in number) scientists with contrary opinions to argue that the jury is still out on this issue and that we can therefore continue to conduct business as usual."
I am not going to pull my punches. You are helping the idiot side of the climate change debate.
Have a nice day.
The proponderance of evidence (a massive amount) and no evidence that contradicts is the "consensus" that is being talked about.
the "Consensus" the deniers talk about is thinking that these are "opinions" when they clearly are not.
1 - What are your scientific credentials.
2 - Please state which "facts" of the IPCC report are in error, and WHY/
3 - Please provide a valid, provable, peer reviewed "correction" of these facts.
If you are unable or unwilling to answer these questions, please stop repeating this propaganda. Unless you can prove your statement, then you have much LESS credibility than those your criticize,
2. There are many "facts" that have been shown to be overstated, non peer-reviewed, and even outright erroneous. Ranging from the statements about the disappearance of ice from the Himalaya's that was proven to be based in pure speculation to the infamous Hockey stick graph. Many of which are irrelevant beyond establishing that the IPCC is indeed capable of error. Let's address one that actually does undermine the idea of AGW: That temperatures are the hottest seen for millenia and are caused by an increase in CO2.
3. For your reading pleasure, here is your correction: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html
The problem is that the IPCC is seen as this almighty authority on the matter of the climate. What people don't understand is that they don't do any research or studies. The IPCC is a group that literally just takes studies already out there and compiles them to create assessments about climate change. It is headed by a romance novelist with no formal expertise or education in anything having to do with the climate who already believed in AGW before he was given his position. So, essentially, they've asked this man to find evidence as to whether or not AGW exists. What validity do you give to asking a man to cherry pick data and studies on an issue he has no expertise in and that he already has a definitive opinion upon? Simply look up 'IPCC peer review' if you really want to see the legitimacy of them. There are literally hundreds of instances of errors, unsubstantiated claims, positing of speculation as facts, and corruption of standard processes.