Where does the figure "97% of scientists" come from?
Wouldn't Galileo have been facing 99% intimidation?

The majority is not necessarily right.
Even if no conspiracy was involved.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/gaius-publius-obamas-flawed-cap-and-trade-um-pay-pollute-emissions-plan.html]Gaius Publius: Obama’s Flawed Cap-and-Trade, Um, Pay-to-Pollute, Emissions Plan[/url]

The author generously "gives Obama points for trying", but as the piece details, the proposal is so wildly loophole-riddled and unintended-consequence-guaranteed that it would be useless at best, and very likely make things worse, by letting the same crooked TBTF banks which are busily profiting from [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0]commodity-price-jacking-via-warehousing-scammery[/url] to now rig the resulting "carbon trading" faux-market. To call the proposal mere congressional-election-year base-pandering hot air is entirely too kind.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;375084][URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/gaius-publius-obamas-flawed-cap-and-trade-um-pay-pollute-emissions-plan.html"]Gaius Publius: Obama’s Flawed Cap-and-Trade, Um, Pay-to-Pollute, Emissions Plan[/URL]

The author generously "gives Obama points for trying", but as the piece details, the proposal is so wildly loophole-riddled and unintended-consequence-guaranteed that it would be useless at best, and very likely make things worse, by letting the same crooked TBTF banks which are busily profiting from [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0"]commodity-price-jacking-via-warehousing-scammery[/URL] to now rig the resulting "carbon trading" faux-market. To call the proposal mere congressional-election-year base-pandering hot air is entirely too kind.[/QUOTE]Isn't this off-topic for a thread about the scientific evidence for global warming, not to mention off-topic for any thread in a "Science & Technology" subforum?

Seems more like "Mystery Economics" to me.

Not all topics fit neatly into the purview of any single thread. Life is messy that way sometimes.

Since the discussion is of Climate Change, and since Human Emissions are a/the dominant factor driving it, it seems that efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions are effectively part of the input to the overall equation. Hence, this is a good place to present this commentary.

There is no similarity
 

[QUOTE=davar55;375059]Where does the figure "97% of scientists" come from?[/QUOTE]
97% of [b]climate[/b] scientists accept the fact that Earth is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific surveys of published scientists, and surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I think the most illuminating of these surveys was by Stephen Schneider, who reported not only percentages who agreed with the basic propositions that the Earth is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause, but also compared the scientific achievements of those who understand the scientific consensus versus those who dispute it. It turns out that the few practicing scientists who reject the scientific consensus are markedly less published and less cited by their peers. In summary, they are the least competent in their field.

[QUOTE=davar55;375059]Wouldn't Galileo have been facing 99% intimidation?[/QUOTE]
No. Public opinion meant nothing in Galileo's day. What he did face was an oppressive theocracy which had no regard for his opinion, nor for the opinions of his peers -- neither peers defined as fellow scholars, as above, nor even the general populace. The comparison you offer is absolutely irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375133]No. Public opinion meant nothing in Galileo's day. What he did face was an oppressive theocracy which had no regard for his opinion, nor for the opinions of his peers -- neither peers defined as fellow scholars, as above, nor even the general populace. The comparison you offer is absolutely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

I don't entirely agree.

It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day. And who turned out to be correct?

Only time will eventually tell.

[QUOTE=chalsall;375153]I don't entirely agree.

It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day. And who turned out to be correct?

Only time will eventually tell.[/QUOTE]

Now that's an interesting thought! Equating Fux Noise with the Holy Office, forsooth!

Another aspect of the latest "bold climate change proposal" from the Dear Leader:

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/obamas-climate-plan-leaking-methane.html]Obama’s Climate Plan is Leaking Methane[/url]

It only takes a very small percentage of the methane produced to leak unburned into the atmosphere - and fracking is a notoriously methane-leakage-prone technology, in addition to being a polluter of groundwater - to entirely negate any CO2 reductions resulting from the "cleaner burning", since CH4 is a roughly 20x more potent greenhouse gas molecule-for-molecule than is CO2.

Do you mean if you reverse the roles that davar55 assigned?
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;375153]I don't entirely agree.

It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day.[/QUOTE]

Who do you see playing a similar role to Galileo?

Definitive Proof
 

:razz: