An overview by James Screen (University of Exeter) and colleagues, published on Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience, finds both consistency and discrepancy among models, but with a new
consensus on certain points.
Not exact matches
Like the conference itself, the Rand report ranges widely, but there is near
consensus on certain key
points: that any attempts to assess labor - market supply - and - demand imbalances require a careful, analytical approach; that it isn't easy to recognize a shortage, much less to predict one; and that right now we lack the data needed to do either.
Climate knowledge is growing rapidly now and while there still remain some interesting challenges to the status quo
on certain points (for example, exactly how it is that CO ₂ and CH ₄ started rising some 5000 years ago, if not by human impacts, or how it is that humans overwhelmed expected gradual declines and added enough to achieve those rises that far back) that need further research... the very conservative
consensus, which must be conservative by its nature since it takes time for
consensus to develop as further research helps to close gaps and remove or improve assumptions, is always playing catch - up it seems.
«His effort will focus
on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is a well established
consensus and
certain — two key
points that are effective at persuading teachers to teach the science.»
Well, I'm about 99.99 %
certain that when the
consensus hits the «tipping
point» where 51 % of the scientist think that anthropogenic global warming is bullshit, that those very same warmers will suddenly start screaming about how a
consensus isn't scientific, even though it was certainly good enough when that
consensus was
on their side of the fence.