Global warming consensus only, not fact
Having spent the majority of my college career navigating my way around my science and math requirements (if you need a suggestion for an easy DIII I'm the girl to ask!), I can safely say that I am not a scientist. I am a rational observer of the scientific community and, as a sentient human being, I am susceptible to their discoveries and assertions. Indeed, wizards in lab coats have the ability to shape policies and affect everyone's lives with their findings. Presently, the breathless dictum emanating from on high is that mankind is warming the planet, causing the oceans to rise and killing the polar bears. Once again, I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to know any more about global warming than the next person. What concerns me is that the dogged proponents of man-made global warming are asserting that the debate is "over" because a "consensus of scientists" believes it to be occurring. In my opinion, to declare a debate over and refuse further discussion is to reveal that the argument is weak and cause people - like me - to question any further assertions. As the great and recently departed Michael Crichton once said, "Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
