Great Comment in the ContraCostaTimes

Mon, 2006-07-17 16:09Sarah Pullman
Sarah Pullman's picture

Great Comment in the ContraCostaTimes

From deep in sunny California comes a guest editorial in the ContraCostaTimes. Edward D. Kukla Jr. has a few things to say about climate change and the question of whether there is a true scientific consensus about it.

Kulka is “a scientist and engineer with advanced degrees in biology and mathematics, and I currently engineer machines designed to measure the concentrations of atmospheric gases, including but not limited to: CO, CH, oxides of nitrogen and virtually every other greenhouse gas.”

His commentary is quick and concise, but the quick and dirty is as follows:

Since the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (greater than 99 percent) hold these as verified facts, then you should accept anthropogenic global warming as reasonable, logical, scientific fact.

Hear, hear.

Comments

Scientific truth is determined by testing and re-testing hypotheses, not by consensus, poll, or vote.

Mr. Kukla is, by his own description, a professional software engineer. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion.

Here at the DeSmogBlog we couldn't agree more, science IS about testing and re-testing hypotheses.

If this is the case (which it is), how come so many of the climate change skeptics spend more time on Fox News and in newspaper columns than they do in a laboratory?

Would be interested in seeing you post a link to the study or analysis you are referencing, or provide some other specifics about it, as I assume it works off a list of skeptics before drawing a conclusion that the percentage of skeptics appearing on Fox News or in newspaper columns is unseemly. Reviewing the list would be interesting. Parenthetically, I view Fox News only intermittently, but have seen only very occasional coverage of global warming there. Fascinating as the topic may be to us, I doubt it drives up ratings.