Doonesbury nails the IDM

[Savonarola]

I'm not a Doonesbury fan, but I should be. He tends to have a lot of stuff like this one that explains the Intelligent Design/Teach the Controversy movement.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Doonesbury nails a lot of them. His "Mr. Butts" line is pretty good, too. I've been following his "BD" series as much as possible - BD (a diehard Republican who served in Viet Nam and Gulf I as well as Iraq) lost a leg in Iraq, he's back home & is having PTRD problems big time - the last one I saw (BD had finally gone to one of the VA counseling centers) he was having flashbacks during a counseling session of when he lost his leg.

There's a reason why most papers put Doonesbury on the political cartoon page (usually paired with Mallard Fillmore, so they can be "fair and balanced").

[Dardedar]

DAR
I'm glad he mentioned global warming.

D.
----------------------
Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase "climate change") from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.

[Hogeye]

Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?

Of course there is. Even global warming* skeptics generally agree. What they disagree with the alarmists about is: 1) whether greenhouse gasses are more significant than other anthopogenic factors like land-use, 2) whether the climate is out of the normal range, compared to historical variances such as the Medieval Warm Period, and 3) the political question of what, if anything, should be done about climate change, and the cost effectiveness of proposed "remedies."

Then there's the question of the role of consensus in science. Virtually all scientific theories were, at one time, counter to consensus. To the extent that claims of scientific consensus inhibit the search for truth, such claims are counter-productive.

* "Global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.'" - Michael Crichton, "State of Fear" p. 81, italics in the original.

[Savonarola]

Part of being a moderator is having to do this:

Let's keep this thread on only Doonesbury and this installment's message of science methodology, and continue the global warming discussion in one of the two threads that already exist here and here.
Your cooperation is appreciated.

-- Sav, Science moderator

No hard feelings toward anyone, of course.
Soon I'll be better at knowing what to let pass and what to redirect.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Okay, I'll respond to Hogeye's comments above:

here