| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 03:47 PM 5/23/2007, bc, you wrote:
Has anyone googled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
My impression: Peiser has back pedalled.
bc ...
Let me show you Peiser's subsequent words, as provided as a reference
in the Wiki pointer you offered.
[Peisner to Sarah Curnow, Thursday, 12 October 2006 7:04 PM ]
Subject: RE: Media Watch enquiry
...
" I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of
global warming.
Neither do I doubt 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 ".....
If this letter is not in fact forged, it appears to state that
Peisner now believes
1) There is global warning.
2) the overwhelming majority of climatologists agree this is due to
human impact.
3) This majority is not however, unanimous...
I do believe that this is from the same note to which John Mallinckrodt
had already pointed (to blind eyes, at least on my part...)
Items 1) and 2) seem to represent an effect called by other authors
"anthropogenic climate change" .
A question of my own:
What perceived proportion of a population, greater than 50%
constitutes "an overwhelming majority?"
and how much smaller than 100% of a population constitutes non-unanimity?
My first guess: at answers: >83% and <94% respectively.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
!DSPAM:3440,4654dd7980541699014269!