"Scientists disagree"

I can feel the pain over at the planet. It's been a tough year, and now the Supreme Court asked the EPA to consider regulating CO2. Planet Gore's Chris Horner:

It is (long past) time the administration (and Congress) stop worrying about the sensitivities of pressure groups and how a hostile press will caricature them, and just stake out what's in the US's best interests. This SCOTUS opinion affirms that: had EPA simply pointed out the scientific uncertainties, ab initio – after all, what are we spending billions on every year? – and that even if they demanded that the US de-industrialize it wouldn't detectably influence global climate, we wouldn't be sitting here today confronting this. So now's the time.

That's right. We're paying those damned scientists to keep sending a steady stream of uncertainty which we then amplify beyond any reasonable level!

It wasn't all that long ago that every media account on the climate had to include a disclaimer about how "scientists disagree." The disagreement amongst scientists over the details of climate models, however, was rather minor compared to the general sense that it's real and something ought to be done about it. Now we hear about the "scientific consensus" which is also not entirely accurate since that's not really what we do all day. In fact, we quibble about other's work more than we sit around finding consensus. But the "scientific consensus" when it comes to describing to the public how we, the scientific community, generally feels about the issue is much closer to the truth than the old "scientists disagree". Understandably, almost, the rapid change in public discourse on this matter in the US will bring some to argue that this is merely "media hype" rather than a more accurate description of the sentiment.

In fact, at this point science has pretty much done all it can do. We'll probably never be able to tell each individual exactly how much gasoline they're allowed to use in order to keep the temperature precisely where it is right now. Science has provided a model, evidence for its validity, and a good estimate of some of our options. Now, it's no longer that "scientists" disagree, but rather that economists--and in the case of the above blogger, lawyers and pundits--disagree on what we should do.

But by and large, we still agree we ought to do something about it. And that maybe the Envrionmental Protection Agency ought to have the ability to decide on matters relating to, you know, our environment.