Topic X (25 CHARACTERS)

This will not be about "s[e]mantics," I promise. To be clear, however, the current debate is not on whether or not global warming exists, and if it indeed does, is at least partially influenced by the activity of mankind, but rather whether or not at least "one" (why the quotes?) scientist has made this claim. I'm sure sadolite will accuse me of being cheap, but this was the criteria he put forth in his first round. Having no topic or clear resolution to go by, this is the de facto debate. One scientist: Naomi Oreskes http://historyweb.ucsd.edu... http://www.sciencemag.org... "Oreskes, 2004 A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[55] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."" -http://en.wikipedia.org... "Existence of a scientific consensus Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or decry the dangers of consensus science.[7][8][16] Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.[17] The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[18][19][20] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[21] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[22] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[23] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion. A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[24] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[25] but his attempted refutation is disputed[26][27][28] and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,[29] also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[27][30] A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[31] Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,[32] " But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. " Similarly, Timothy Ball asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."[33] At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities[17] or risk losing funding. In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion,[34][35][36] to scientific support for the eugenics movement,[37][38] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston[39] and miasma.[40]" - http://en.wikipedia.org... I believe I have surpassed the given criteria of victory with this evidence and the secondary evidence within that. Vote CON. Back to you, sadolite. Britt