This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out one can't claim there is consensus on Global Warming Theory and until there is we should not take any actions.
Answer:
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect. No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the Greenhouse effect or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability or if sea levels have risen over the last century. This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
- the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend that is beyond the range of natural variability.
- the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
- the rise in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning.
- if CO2 continues to rise over the next century the warming will continue
- a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment
While theories and alternate view points in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents are in a very small minority. If one requires unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1). This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world..
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
in either one or both of these documents: [PDF] [PDF]
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
- NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Institute of Physics (AIP)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not a scientific consensus, then what in the world would a consensus look like?
[Addendum: One could quite legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is really determined in peer reviewed journals. Fortunately, there is a bit of research one can turn to that looked specifically at this very question, and this is the subject of another guide entry. Please see this article.]
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"There is no Consensus" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
"Science is really determined in peer reviewed journals."
Stop, stop, the laughter is killing me.
Oh, you're serious,
Erm, ok. I'll put aside the fact that 90% of research groups I've had contact with (a fair few) bias their results to make themselves look great and assume that the people in climate research are all from a different gene pool.
Posted by: frank | September 12, 2008 5:19 AM
As a scientist I shudder at the term concensus. There are many papers that disagree with the theory that global warming is caused by rising CO2. There is a whole group of people who believe the cause is due to the sun's activity. The idea that you put forth is this - it's so complicated and beyond our comprehension we have decided as a group to attribute the warming to CO2. I actually have no problem either way. As a scientist the results of investigation are simply what they are. The problem with the global warming crowd is, like men from centuries ago, they have looked up at the stars and without any real evidence decided Mars is drawn throught the sky by a firery chariot.
The concensus you talk about was a horrible phrase in the IPCC report that should have been stricken during peer review. The problem was, the peer review was political and not scientific so the phrase stayed. Most of the IPCC report is written by economists and the bulk of that paper is about transferring wealth from the US to the rest of the world is good. I actually read the paper and many of the papers they site in the report. Science is not determined by peer reviewed journals, its determined by experimentation and evaluation. The results may be published, by certainly not determined by journals.
Posted by: Shane | September 13, 2008 7:14 AM
"The problem with the global warming crowd is, like men from centuries ago, they have looked up at the stars and without any real evidence decided Mars is drawn throught the sky by a firery chariot."
"Most of the IPCC report is written by economists"
"the bulk of that paper is about transferring wealth from the US to the rest of the world"
Hi Shane,
These are such ridiculous statements that it is very obvious you have never looked at that report, much less read the papers it refences. Nice try though (as a scientist ;-)
Posted by: coby | September 13, 2008 8:47 AM
Evidence that they are ridiculous statements?
Smearing & ridiculing someone doesn't show a lot of confidence (or manners) on your part. You're what -- a programmer?
Tell you what, rather than playing it safe and hiding behind those studies and viewpoints that support your position, why don't you engage a debate with someone like Richard S. Lindzen over this point:
"Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Just email him with some question -- I'm sure he'd be happy to accommodate you. That would really show there's some real substance behind you and this blog -- short of that, your blog is just a self-published platform of self-formed & biased opinion -- it doesn't persuade but only preaches to the choir.
~ Best,
Charters
Posted by: The Charters Of Dreams | September 14, 2008 9:16 AM
Coby, do you think you could address in the article the charges that the IPCC doesn't represent, as you put it, "arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history"? For example there's this piece by Tom Harris and JohnMcLean published in The News Letter (Belfast), and they have a similar bit in Salon. I'm specifically interested in their assertion that only 62 scientists reviewed the important statement from chapter 9, ""Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." I've already seen blog posts denouncing the authors as industry lackeys, and explaining that their charge about comments being rejected is misleading. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in their charge that the main conclusion of the IPCC's report was reviewed by only 62 scientists and that thus it's not "arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history". I've been unable to find that charge addressed anywhere on the net, even in blogs. Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Michael Bluejay | September 16, 2008 5:32 AM
Michael Bluejay:
Tim Lambert does a good enough job on that one, but since some of the links are broken...
You can take a look at the comments on the entire report, including chapter 9, yourself, between both the first-order draft and the second-order draft, and see that the 62-scientists line is unwarranted. It ignores the more numerous comments on the first-order draft (not to mention it belies the SIZE of the report; it's just one chapter from one working group).
You'll also be treated to Vincent Gray's comments -- see Lambert above for a quick sample. You can't miss them, he wrote about half (572) of the total comments, and he left most of them unsupported.
Posted by: Brian D | September 18, 2008 10:56 AM
Thank you for the reply, and the links.
After thoughtful review, I find Lambert's rebuttal against the charge that only 62 scientists refereed the main conclusion of the 4th assessment to be incredibly lacking. First off, he says there were "much more" than 62 reviewers for chapter 9, but doesn't bother to say how many. Either he knows this figure or he doesn't know. If he doesn't know, then he has no business arguing a point he can't support. If he does know, then he's being disingenuous by not sharing that figure.
And that's because the figure doesn't support his claims. I count a whopping 81 reviewers in the 1st draft. By arguing against the 62 figure, Lambert suggests that the number of reviewers is a lot higher. 81 is not a lot higher. In fact, it's a hell of a lot closer to 62 than to 2500, which was Harris & McLean's point.
The same thing can be said about the difference between the 1st and 2nd drafts: Either Lambert is aware of the difference, or he is not. If he's not aware, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he is aware, then he is being willfully deceptive by not presenting the full story. In the 1st draft, the summary of chapter 9 says meekly that warming is not *solely* due to natural forces, i.e. that human activity is *partly* responsible. In the 2nd draft, the statement is much more forceful, that human activity is the *dominant* cause. That's a massive difference.
This statement from the 2nd draft was specifically what Harris & McLean's were talking about. That's not hard to see, they opened the article with their argument, identified the particular statement, and then said, "So how many of the 2,500 scientists who reviewed parts of the complete IPCC report actually reviewed this statement?"
The correct answer is 62. The (whopping) 81 reviewers of the 1st draft did not review that statement, because it didn't appear in the 1st draft.
Say that Harris & McLean are non-scientists and are industry lackeys, but their charge that the most important conclusion statement of the IPCC 4th assessment report was reviewed by only 62 reviewers, is factually correct.
Posted by: Michael Bluejay | September 19, 2008 11:20 PM
The TRUE history of the consensus is found here
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Posted by: doubledaredenier | October 24, 2008 8:20 AM
Apologies to Charters - he had already pointed out the Lindzen paper. Quite a convincing examination of "the consensus", written at the time (1992)it was being formed (concocted?) by someone who was in close proximity. I am an economist and certainly will leave the climate science to the client scientists - most of the true climate scientists are not on board any consensus on the causes of climate change.
Posted by: doubledaredeniter | October 24, 2008 9:06 AM
Just to add some fuel to the fire; the "peer review" process, supposedly employed by the IPCC, is laughable by any normal scientific standards.
Numerous contributors have reported that their responses, disputing the findings, were dismissed or ignored completely. In at least one case, the final report was altered (by adding a 'minor' line about warming being anthropologically caused) AFTER the 'review process' had been completed. In essence, the final version was never reviewed at all. This is not how the peer review process works in science.
Also, after numerous requests to have their names removed from the list of contributors (because they disagreed with the outcome)some on the list have actually had to sue to get the IPCC to comply.
Regarding your quote: "No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the Greenhouse effect or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability or if sea levels have risen over the last century. This is where there is a consensus."
That is absolutely untrue. For example, in NY City, in March of 2009, there will be a convention of scientists who disagree completely with the conclusions of the IPCC, including the sea level having risen and whether the warming trend is outside of natural ranges. They expect up to 1,000 scientists to attend.
Those touting 'concensus' are doing so to shut down those who disagree. True scientists will welcome others to attempt to disprove their theories. It is that process that leads to the facts. Unfortunately, the facts are not what many in this debate (which I assure you is still ongoing) are searching for.
Posted by: GrecRI | December 7, 2008 8:33 PM
GrecRl, the "conference of scientists" is put on by the Heartland Institute. It's the second such conference they've held; look at their protocol from the earlier one and you'll see it's a policy conference, not a scientific one. The fact that its key speakers included journalists, weathermen, and lobbyists should be a dead giveaway. The 2009 version doesn't appear to be much better; last I heard they were letting sponsors have input on the topics of the conference (this isn't the case with scientific conferences) and were asking sponsors not to provide money but to provide an audience (suggesting they're well-funded but interested in noise and attention rather than further research).
Interestingly, while the IPCC view is self-consistent with all serious debate being over minor details, the 'scientists' at the Heartland conference could only agree on one detail: It's not man-made. Some claimed it was the sun, others said the oceans. Some claim it's not happening, others said it was happening but it'd be good. Not one stopped to question why no one at this conference could agree on a consistent story.
Posted by: Brian D | December 8, 2008 9:43 AM
And you don't consider the IPCC reports policy over science?
"The fact that its key speakers included journalists, weathermen, and lobbyists should be a dead giveaway"
That combination sounds like an IPCC review board to me.
Perhaps they don't all agree on one consistent story because they:
A) Have not been working together since 1992 to get their story straght and to create the illusion of a 'consensus'.
B) Are not attempting to silence the many different scientific opinions that exist on the subject in order to distort promote a political agenda.
Posted by: GrecRI | December 8, 2008 7:52 PM
Grec, you seem to have confused the IPCC reports with the IPCC summary for policymakers. Know the difference, it could save your life.
Some of these folk have been working together since before 1992. Look at the history of the George C. Marshall Institute, for instance.
And as for the accusation about suppression and persecution, that's a serious claim. I presume you have evidence to back it up?
Posted by: Brian D | December 9, 2008 8:50 AM
Anyone care to comment on this, and whether the phrase "tiny minority" still applies.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Posted by: paul | December 11, 2008 8:09 AM
Please. I would like to know the official position of some of you AGW proponents on this list of scientists who have gone on record.
Is "Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson... formerly of NASA" going to be treated with the same slobbering reverence as NASA's Gavin Schmidt? Is everything she said going to be treated as gospel?
At the very least Coby, will you withdraw this page and admit that there is no consensus? maybe even rejoin the debate so as to determine what is going on?
Posted by: paul | December 12, 2008 11:16 AM
paul, Inhofe's list is not very convincing in the slightest, have a look here and at the linked material from Andrew Dessler.
Consensus does not mean unanimity, so the existence of a few qualified people with differing opinions does not overturn the mountain of scholarship and institutional endorsements presented above. Sorry, it just doesn't. And the presence of mostly unqualified people demonstrates the opposite of the intent.
As for Joanne Simpson, it is useful to read some of her own material.
Hardly agrees with Inhofe's view that the whole theory is a hoax.
What is Simpson's area of research? Is she still active?
Posted by: coby | December 12, 2008 10:43 PM
When is something a "consensus" then? How can we test whether we have arrived at one?
You call the situation a "few qualified people with differing opinions" - I characterise it differently. I certainly don't think it obvious that the people on this list are just obviously less qualified than many of those I see quoted defending AGW.
And you can always pick on a few people and point out that they say something indefensible that the others would not necessarily agree with - are you saying I can't point out sensationalist or exaggerated claims from AGW proponents? I can do this all day. For example, Al gore recently said
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3974505n
that I can be compared with those who believe the moon-landing was fake or flat-earthers. Freeman Dyson is being put in this category? By AL GORE? This is simply too absurd for words - I bet even many AGW people would not defend this. Yet I don't claim that your entire argument is invalid on this basis, I instead prefer to attend to the facts.
If Joanne Simpson has changed her mind, then all the better - this is even stronger. She is a just a single example i chose, but the point is, she has a phd in meteorology and worked at NASA. Are you saying she's a denier, crackpot, whatever?
I don't know here exact area of research no. But please don't suggest that because this is not someone's exact field that they can't possibly have anything valid to say. This is also just ridiculous. On this basis, the number of people who could comment at all on the climate models would be very small indeed. And how could a phd ever be examined? The student always knows more about the topic than the examiner. But examiners who have proven expertise in a related subject matter are trusted to ask questions and, based on the answers, determine how well the argument has been constructed.
No, the point is that you want the case dismissed before trial, yet there are a large number of people who have backgrounds and expertise that cannot be easily dismissed that do not buy into the hype. You can say they are wrong, but you can't say they're not there.
Posted by: paul | December 13, 2008 12:46 AM
Some info on the backgrounds and expertise of some in the IPCC (who seem to denigrate those on the other side with similar backgrounds)...
The IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri - has no peer-reviewed climate articles to his name. Why? He is an economist and industrial engineer, not a climate scientist.
Of the 51 UK contributors to AR4 WGII:
5 - economists
3 - epidemiologists
5 - civil engineer or risk management /insurance specialists
5 - zoologists, entomologists, or biologists
7 - with geography background
10 - geophysics, hydrology, climate science or modeling
15 - "social sciences"
Not to suggest there is anything wrong with any of those professions, but I get a kick out of how people like Pachauri are often referred to as "Climate Experts".
Posted by: GrecRI | December 14, 2008 8:18 PM
Hi GrecRI,
WGII is all about impacts and concerns all of the disciplines convered by the authors. WGI is all about the scientific basis of climate change concerns.
Give us a run down on those authors.
Posted by: coby | December 14, 2008 10:55 PM
You can add The American Chemical Society to your list. It's an "ACS Position Statement." There is a pdf on the page for download.
It begins thusly: "Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change."
Posted by: John P | January 19, 2009 4:02 PM
Sorry, but i do not see what all the fuss is about. To me a consensus is simply a group of people that agree with each other, how many people do you need to be considered a consensus? A consensus does not infer proof or fact towards what the consensus are in agreeance with. Therefore 1 person can prove a consensus of thousands to be wrong, agreed? There is no point debating who has the bigger consensus.
As AGW proponents will continue anyway pointing to the consensus as some form of proof i have a question for them, is Jim Hansen part of this consensus, i assume he is as Coby has listed GISS. So when he opens his mouth and speaks without thinking and says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
Is he speaking on behalf of the consensus? i doubt it as he often contradicts what is in the latest IPCC report, one example has been pointed out by Luna the cat the IPCC predicts the Arctic sea ice to increase but yet here we have Hansen saying the opposite.
So what kind of consensus is this? Obviously Hansen did not discuss his latest diatribe with them. The purpose of a consensus is to discuss new developements as they arise and together come to an agreement on what actions or statements to make next. This did not happen, so in the end all you have is a list of names but there is no consensus.
Posted by: Crakar14 | January 20, 2009 6:59 PM
Crakar, the list of organizations agree on the statements I presented in the post. This does not mean that everything said by every member or each organization is part of that.
When there is a complex issue whose assessment is beyond the practical grasp of the majority of policy makers and citizens then a consensus of experts in the field is an important thing to have.
It is not offered as proof, or even evidence, the AGW is real, only as a rebuttal to the stated denialist talking point.
Posted by: coby | January 20, 2009 7:39 PM
Sorry about that Coby i assumed Luna was correct when they stated the IPCC predicted the Arctic sea ice extent to increase as per the 2001 report, on closer examination it appears that Luna was not correct. (probably confused with Arctic and Antarctic) i know i have done the same, easier to say north or south pole i think.
Anyway as the 2001 report states the North pole will continue to melt and J Hansen has said the same so i will respectfully retract the bit about Hansen not being part of the consensus.
Posted by: Crakar14 | January 20, 2009 8:52 PM
Hi Coby.
I've built up a website listing members of working group I (the scientific basis) from IPCC's AR4 (2007), plus a range of other researchers. I link to their academic or research lab homepage, and fill in a few stats on citations to their work looked up on Google Scholar (with links for readers to see the Google Scholar results directly). I've linked this as my "home" page for this post so click on my name to reach the site.
I've also annotated which authors signed any of several public declarations on climate change, both from 'skeptics' and ones calling for prompt action to cut greenhouse gas emissions -- these I term 'activist' appeals.
I've got some analysis on this site itself, and further commentary on my blog "Green Herring" which is linked off the site. For those who question whether the IPCC reports reflect the views of the majority of scientists with relevant expertise, this list offers another way to slice the loaf. Have a look at my listings and see who endorsed the 2008 Union of Concerned Scientists Appeal and the 2007 Bali Climate Declaration, then compare to those who appeared in "The Great Globabl Warming Swindle" or signers of the Manhattan Declaration. I'll let the listings speak for themselves.
Jim Prall
Toronto, Canada
Posted by: Jim Prall | February 11, 2009 1:21 PM
Jim Prall is probably already aware of this, but for others in the Greater Toronto Area, there is an excellent series of "distinguished lectures" seminars sponsored by the University of Toronto:
http://www.cgcs.utoronto.ca/Seminars.htm
(damn! I justed noticed that Ruddiman was last Tuesday! I thought it was next week! damn!)
Posted by: tidal | February 13, 2009 2:53 PM
"Science is not determined by peer reviewed journals, its determined by experimentation and evaluation. The results may be published, by certainly not determined by journals."
Ah you give the game away there Shane - you've never published a paper I suspect. Science is determined ultimately by consensus. It begins with the achievement of consensus amongst a peer review that ones experiments stand up to scrutiny - that one's work passes the basic scientific test of being worthy of publications. This IS the fundamental unit of modern scientific work - the publication of results in reputable conferences and journals. It builds, through a slow accumulation of evidence ot the development of new theories, that again, published in peer reviewed journals, ultimately change the existing consensus view to accommodate this wondrous new discovery of yours. Sometimes, this might even radically overturn or update accepted theory - congratulations - you get the Nobel. But at every stage, from getting your supervisor to agree to let you run the experiments all the way up to delivering your Nobel prize speech, its about communicating ideas so that ultimately the truth of what you say persuades others to accept your ideas. Consensus all the way.
Those who can't get the idea of consensus in science are ultimately confused by how consensus is used in other walks of life and what it means, for example, to achieve consensus in say a union-employer dispute or a peace negotiation. Consensus does not mean compromise. Two entirely different ideas.
Science is fundamentally about discovering and communicating new knowledge, designing and presenting experiments that persuade.
That you don't get that tells us you are either a layman, or a very early PhD student.
Must say its funny to see the GW deniers hanging out here - suppose its to be expected.
Posted by: erstwhile | August 23, 2009 1:14 PM
your are also, Shane, hopelessly out of your depth regarding the basis for genuine contention amongst climate scientists. Theories you refer to re. solar activity etc. are the stuff of wingnut blogs, long discounted. The real argument made by a few isolated scientists such as Lindzen and Dyson, do not debate the basic science as you would try to. What they say is that the evidence and basic theory do not allow us to make far reaching conclusions about likely future trends. Lindzen, for example, argues that human induced global warming (which he does not deny is occurring) can account for only a proportion of warming seen and ultimately is not a problem. Most scientists think he is wrong.
There are really very very few climate scientists left who challenge the basic theory. They simply question the consequences, pointing to the significant gaps in understanding. Note, they don't anymore offer any new fundamentally new ideas or explanatory theories. They just do criticism. This is a pretty natural retreat, if you think about it. The consensus has moved on past them, even as they resist, to acknowledge that climate change is a real and present danger. Its good they are around, but it should also be remembered that on the other side of the IPCC are the other bunch of fringe scientists who argue that the IPCC deeply underestimate the dangers. The deniers like to identify the IPCC as extremists in order to portray Lindzen et al. as simply cautious careful scientists. In reality thats the IPCC, and these guys are reactionary in essence, promoting a radical departure from mainstream scientific understanding, right or wrong.
Posted by: erstwhile | August 23, 2009 1:28 PM
erstwhile,
The question is, is there a concensus that AGW is alive and well? Yes there is, so does this prove the theory correct?
Before you answer that question let me say this, there is also a consensus that says AGW is vastly overrated and that CO2 plays nothing more than a bit part.
So here we have two scientific consensus's with basically opposing views, does this help us reach a greater understanding of the climate? No a consensus merely says that a group of people agree with each other nothing more nothing less.
One question i have for you (or anybody else) if the IPCC is 90% sure man is the culprit then where is the 10% of their vast budget being spent to try and find evidence to the contrary?
I thought a concensus would be 100% sure?
Posted by: crakar14 | August 23, 2009 6:31 PM
The consensus you speak of isn't held by climate scientists, but typically people with no scientific training, such as the much-worshipped Anthony Watts who apparently doesn't hold as much as an undergraduate degree (in anything).
Posted by: dhogaza | August 24, 2009 8:06 AM
A phone booth dogaza?
Follow this link to see how big the anti agw consensus really is (37 pages worth of quotes), also note that many of these people are in fact "expert IPCC reviewers".
h.t.t.p://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf
My favourite quote is the very last one,
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973, IVAR GIAEVER, a fellow of the American Physical
Society.
“Global warming has become a new religion.”
“We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether
they are correct is important. We don't really know
what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."
Posted by: crakar14 | September 23, 2009 10:43 PM
dogaza i just realised what phone booth you were talking about, its the doctors Tardis isnt it. You are a very clever (and funny person).
Posted by: crakar14 | September 24, 2009 5:57 PM
The University of Chicago released a survey in January of 2009 which involved surveying all scientists who study climatology through North America Europe and Asia. The results indicate 97% of climate scientists believe that GW is anthropogenically caused... By the way my professor at the University of Oslo is a huge climate change skeptic and what a surprise, not a climatologist... shocking... there's almost a trend between researchers who study other things than climate and skepticism...
Posted by: robert | October 13, 2009 3:17 PM
This is the story of how much we tolerate these members of the modern idiot royalty of pseudoscience. I recall seeing an association of AGW skeptics with denying plate tectonics. And when is the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society? Then there is phlogiston theory, aether, hollow earth, phrenology, Martian canals and even the planet Vulcan (in 1860).
We used to be amused by such fringe whack-jobs, now their meddling influence - a power that we bestow upon them - is causing great damage. Time for everyone to move along.
Posted by: richard pauli | October 16, 2009 9:57 PM
What a difference a couple of months make?
Now we know that the raw data has been fudged to "hide the decline". We know that the whole peer-reviewed process has been subverted. We suddenly see many more legitimate scientists not on board with AGW, and we know that they original data was thrown away!
We have now seen that the raw New Zealand data shows no warming as does the European dataset put together by the geo-magneticists.
And there is evidence that both Mann and the CRU guys have pretended there is no urban heat island effect in order to show some warming.
We also know that their models have failed to predict the temperature of the last decade or so (in their own words).
There's a nice word for models that fail to predict anything.
Wrong.
Posted by: fustian | December 6, 2009 7:40 AM
Fustian's last word describes the whole of his post - nice.
Note the lack of sources to back up the accusations, note the complete lack of awareness that all of his points have been addressed and found wanting, note the complete credulity regarding the misinformation campaign spread across the nets.
Wrong.
Posted by: Chris S. | December 6, 2009 8:05 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
Forgive me if I look like I'm aiding and abetting the enemy, but this link to a nifty Atlantic article I read provides analogies to the global warming debate (and some research I'm working on in my own field, but that need not concern the forum.)
It provokes interesting questions about how we should regard a scientific "consensus" and how it should impact public policy. The authors interview "dissenters" from the "consensus" position that the flu vaccine improves public health. (To oversimplify, selection biases across groups who do and don't get the flu shots might cause overestimation of the effectiveness of the intervention-- but read the article.)
I can see how an AGW denier would use this as an analogy: The "cure" might be worse than the "problem" (Dissenters from the vaccine consensus say it causes a false sense of security and diverts people from the simple, everyday behavioral adjustments like washing hands and avoiding contact with the infected. By analogy, the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world might say that carbon emissions don't solve anything and more realistic responses are within reach. I think his arguments are inane but we could discuss that on another thread.)
I guess my response would be: Fine, but this doesn't change the fact that the flu is still a *public health problem* that requires *some* response. There is no threat to the consensus on that.
Anyway food for thought,
Skip
Posted by: skip | December 17, 2009 11:04 AM
There you go ... they're differing on how to respond to a known problem, not denying that influenza exists. They're not trumpeting stolen Flugate e-mails and quoting them out of context to "prove" that it's all a hoax based on the fact that home thermometers aren't always precisely calculated and therefore those reports of 103F fevers can't be trusted, etc etc. Or that "trick" of adjusting for the temperature differences between oral and rectal thermometer measurements "proves" that people who supposedly have the flu don't really have fever symptoms.
That's the kind of analogy I draw ...
Posted by: dhogaza | December 17, 2009 12:02 PM
Hehe.
Doesn't a prone patient with a rectal thermometer inserted form a "hockey stick"? Hasn't that been debunked?
Oh God. Where's Crakar when I need him?
LOL.
Skip
Posted by: skip | December 17, 2009 12:13 PM
skip
I had a look at your article, and I apologise if I give you the same advice that I have been trying to drum into crakar's head, but I feel I need to.
Please don't rely on blog posts and magazine articles etc for information on scientific issues - they are invariably wrong, or at best, provide only snippets of useful information.
I read throught the linked article, then decided to do a little research on what studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of the flue vaccines, especially in the "cohort studies" that they were concerned about.
Unfortunately, the available evidence just does not support the assertions in the article. There have been plenty of cohort studies where other confounding factors such as lifestyle etc do not play a part or have been considered - despite the claims in the article - (in studies of vaccinated health care workers etc), and the findings are unequivocal. Flu vaccinations work. They reduce mortality rates, they reduce the costs associated with hospitisations etc, and they reduce the transmission rates of the disease.
So in one way I feel you are right - this is analogous to the climate change debate. Unfortunately, the analogy I draw is that people use incorrect information based on inadequate research to draw false conclusions. Sorry about that.
Posted by: mandas | December 17, 2009 2:13 PM
Huh.
Well how about that?
I don't know how well the cohort studies controlled for selection bias but I imagine those folks knew what they were doing. In any event, I wasn't citing it as an authority per se (I would stake far less on the flu issue than I would on my view on AGW) but as a conversation starter. But thanks for the insight.
I'm still not getting my flu shot.
It will be interesting to see the letters to the editor that come out of this article. No doubt the AMA will have an angle.
Skip
Posted by: skip | December 17, 2009 2:45 PM
Mandas,
Why dont you use your own advice and supply me with a study that shows how CO2 will cause the catastrophic warming (via empirical evidence) that is predicted, your continued failure to produce such a study suggests strongly that you as Skip put so well are full of shit.
So please produce the requested study or stop bullshitting.
Posted by: crakar24 | December 17, 2009 5:01 PM