Is Scientific Consensus a Threat to Democracy?

chance_encounter writes "President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus has published an article in the Financial Times in which he seems to equate the current global warming debate with totalitarian thought control: 'The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced ... The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.' At the end of the article he proposes several suggestions to improve the global climate debate, including this point: 'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"

Comments

Re:Finally, someone said it

[sporkme]

President Bill Clinton refused to forward the protocol to Congress for ratification. Vice President Al Gore wanted language including developing nations in the accords, and when the language was not added he withdrew his support for the treaty. Only after President Bush was elected did Mr. Gore call for total adoption of the Kyoto treaty as it is. Before we lob accusations about what "Shrub" has or has not done, we should consider why we are in this situation. In the 90's, Vice President Al Gore knew that the most risky source of an increase in emissions came from developing nations, not "USians." That and the crippling restrictions on US business were all the justification he needed to kill the treaty in the United States. He was right.

Re:does that mean....

[Goaway]

No, all the serious scientific organizations.

Really.

All of them.

Seriously, for real.

Yes.

All of them.

No, really.

It's true.

Did the message get through, yet? Look, here's a scientific study of the fact that all climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004

Believe it yet?

It's true.

Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[DiamondGeezer]

You have produced yet another set of statements without proof that this has anything to do with man-made global warming. Sea-levelss have been rising for more than 10,000 years and somehow you've just noticed?

In any case,

a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.

b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish.

Here's what the scientists say:

"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and

"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."

So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise.