A Consensus on Politics and Science

[Dante]

Something interesting is going on...

Science On Point with Tom Ashbrook

Bio. ASU Professor and Co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. Daniel Sarewitz is professor of Science and Society at Arizona State

"consensus" "The characterization you hear from Democrats is that, there's a scientific consensus on what's happening to the planet in terms of temperatures, but one side is unwilling to accept the consensus. Do you see that as the case, or do you actually think that the scientific community itself is not at consensus?"

DS: "First thing to say is that climate change is such a divisive issue, and it is so complicated in the mixture of politics and the science, that it's difficult to have a sensible conversation about it. But I think it's quite reasonable to assert on the one hand, that there's a very strong scientific consensus, that's actually rooted in the chemistry of the atmosphere that's been established, since the early twentieth century: that human additions of green house gases to the atmosphere, are contributing to warming to the planet. That's really not where the problem lies. The problem really lies in what to do. How do you change the global energy system, upon which all societies completely depend; how do you change it in a desired way? That's something we don't know how to do, and it's gonna require many experiments, and no one knows the answer of what the best route is."


The Future Of Scientific Discovery Audio of On Point

Saving Science Daniel Sarewitz's article
​

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Within a period of only a few hours, the eggheads on the ground at Mission Control were able to create a CO2 filtration device made up of inventoried available items on board Apollo 13 and they saved that crew, preventing them from suffocating on their own breath. I'm sure a similar device could be created and applied to all combustion engines providing the same filtration effect.
But that's not what the AGW scam is really about. The real objective is economic manipulation and control as well as demonizing an industry largely considered sympathetic to Republicans.
AGW is a scam.

 

[Dante]

Within a period of only a few hours, the eggheads on the ground at Mission Control were able to create a CO2 filtration device made up of inventoried available items on board Apollo 13 and they saved that crew, preventing them from suffocating on their own breath. I'm sure a similar device could be created and applied to all combustion engines providing the same filtration effect.
But that's not what the AGW scam is really about. The real objective is economic manipulation and control as well as demonizing an industry largely considered sympathetic to Republicans.
AGW is a scam.

Weird.

"An industry sympathetic to Republicans?" Do you always put the 'cart before the horse?'

Try educating yourself instead of regurgitating talking points

On Point with Tom Ashbrook: Daniel Sarewitz

"consensus" "The characterization you hear from Democrats is that, there's a scientific consensus on what's happening to the planet in terms of temperatures, but one side is unwilling to accept the consensus. Do you see that as the case, or do you actually think that the scientific community itself is not at consensus?"

DS: "First thing to say is that climate change is such a divisive issue, and it is so complicated in the mixture of politics and the science, that it's difficult to have a sensible conversation about it. But I think it's quite reasonable to assert on the one hand, that there's a very strong scientific consensus, that's actually rooted in the chemistry of the atmosphere that's been established, since the early twentieth century: that human additions of green house gases to the atmosphere, are contributing to warming to the planet. That's really not where the problem lies. The problem really lies in what to do. How do you change the global energy system, upon which all societies completely depend; how do you change it in a desired way? That's something we don't know how to do, and it's gonna require many experiments, and no one knows the answer of what the best route is."

Saving Science

Saving Science
Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing. To save the enterprise, scientists must come out of the lab and into the real world.
Daniel Sarewitz​

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Speak for yourself. AGW is a democrat political enterprise. Its subsidiaries include the EPA.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Consensus" has no basis is science; it's a religious word