markus/Fred -
I was struck by the same sentence -
<blockquote>“The latter implies that certain general principles that are <b>almost universally accepted</b> by the knowledgeable scientific community are in doubt – in particular, the concept that human anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have <b>significant</b> climate impact that <b>must</b> be evaluated for its potential consequences”.</blockquote>
I've added emphasis to show where I think Fred is claiming something unsupportable. Those three things put together basically misrepresent the reality of the science, and its community.
Fred - you often make great play of the cautious nature of the scientific enterprise. What you have done here is claim something that is not true. There is no evidence for what you say. You have reached a personal conclusion (which is not "almost universally accepted") and then simply made up a statement that the "knowledgeable" community agree with you.
I think it would serve you well to accept that advocacy creeps into the pronouncements of all of us. Also, and perhaps more importantly, an argument from authority, weak as it is, only has weight if the authority agrees with the argument.
↧