There is an interesting article on global warming up at Salon, one well worth sitting through Salon’s ad wall (it’s not that bad, about 15 seconds of Flash).

The author, Joseph Romm, writes frequently on climate science issues and runs a site called ClimateProgress.org. He argues that talking about the “consensus” of scientific opinion actually does a disservice to the strength of the arguments for global warming.

In fact, science doesn't work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview.

One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.

So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.

Romm also argues that there is little doubt that the results of global warming are going to be far more serious than the recent UN report predicts (whose sponsoring organization shared the Nobel Prize). The conclusions were watered down, since member countries had to sign off on all the statements to get the paper published. Worse, further scientific study is mostly finding feedback mechanisms in the climate which tend to make the outlook more and more dismal.

This is one more area where our media do us a disservice by simply mouthing a “he-said she-said” list of talking points between scientists and global warming deniers. Like I said, this article is well worth a read, especially if you are only casually familiar with the outlines of the debate.