On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does the word "prevailing" mean that different scientists can reach > different conclusions based on identical scientific calculations?
Case in point: "Global Warming." The facts tend to show that the earth's average temperature is about .5°F warmer today than it was 100 years ago. The conclusions drawn from that simple observation run the gamut from shrugs about a natural and expected cyclical swing to near hysteria that the end is near for mankind due to rising oceans, etc. Then again our views of "prevailing" scientific conclusions come from a media prone to sensationalism. Sure, there's a document advocating the theory of global warming signed by 1000 scientists. How many signed because it was the "politically expedient" thing to do (imminent grant renewal)? How many were contacted who refused to sign? How many were never contacted because their views were already known? Perhaps "prevailing" science is simply that which is politically useful. -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
