OT Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers 1986
The consensus of the scientific community was that there wasn't really a good enough model to make a prediction. The page above has quotes from the era...
No, it's just bad. I mean, obviously not all the time, but it certainly has a tendency to oversimplify things so much that they're just plain wrong, and sensationalize everything. You shouldn't have *that* much trouble understanding this; after all, mainstream reporting on computer issues faces similar problems. (The latest nonsense is that World Cup video streaming is going to destroy the Internet, or something.)
discusses this. There was a cooling trend from the 40s to the 70s, and scientists had noted that interglacial followed a fairly consistent pattern and that the current one had already gone on longer than most. The mainstream media took these facts -- which are, by the way, obviously true -- and ran with them, sensationalizing them beyond all reason and declaring that the next ice age was due to start any day.
No, Mayor. The Mainstream media pretends there's no consensus (see the figures Timberwoof posted; 53% of articles about global warming express some doubt). This has become a political issue, and the mainstream media is more interested in political 'balance' than accurately representing science.
I already debunked Peiser's supposed disproof of the Oreskes essay; you're either going to have to address that, or accept that there's basically nothing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature arguing against anthropogenic global warming.
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are...
According to the data.
-- "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005