[geeks] Global Warming causes...

[wa2egp at att.net]

> >Well, do what Al Gore said/did.  Look at articles published in scientific
> >journals and see how many are about global warming happening and how many
> >are not.  That might be a decent indication of a consensus.  
> 
> That would be the seldom-taught "Statistical/Scientific method", as opposed to 
> the previously-taught "scientific method" - right?

It's a heck of a lot better than someone making a blanket statement citing no
evidence.   I'm not even sure that too many people know that the "scientific
method" is.  It's not that list of steps that most people are taught in school.
It's more.  There is a lot of feedback from other scientists in the process.

The claim that Gore was addressing was there was no consensus, so he compared
peer-reviewed articles and popular media articles during the same time period.
Maybe he picked his time period, I don't know, but there were no peer-reviewed
articles saying there was no global warming but the popular media had, IIRC,
about one third of the articles saying that there was none or it wasn't from 
human activity.  Why were there no articles in scientific journals?  Maybe 
they didn't pass the peer-review process.  Maybe the nasayers never published?
Who knows?  Scientific journals serve a purpose. That's were a good part of 
scientific discussion occurs.  

Bob