2 ms·

While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it is legitimate to look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most studies a

by lutorm 17y ago

While it's true that you can't do science by consensus, it is legitimate to look at a range of studies and see where they agree. Those parts that most studies agree on can justifiably be called the "consensus among the scientific community". Your last paragraph simply isn't justified. Do you think any action or conclusion lives up to that standard? In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? AGW is the conclusion of applying simple physics to the problem. In my mind, if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? ... if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do. Because the scientific method dictates that the burden of proof is borne by the one proposing the theory. The opposite is impractical, because for most questions it's not possible to prove the open-ended negative.
- gjm11 17y ago
  I think talk of "the theory" is ambiguous, so let's break this down a bit. (All the claims I'm going to list should really be made in a quantitative form. They all can be; I'm just too lazy right now to look up the numbers.) Theory 1: More CO2 in the atmosphere tends to produce warmer climate. This is, on the face of it at least, a consequence of well-established physics. The burden of proof here is on anyone wishing to deny it, just as it would be for "if I drop a dachsund from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it will fall to the ground". Theory 2: Human activity over recent decades has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yup, the burden of proof here would be on those who advocate this theory. As it happens, there's no shortage of evidence. See, e.g., http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html . Theory 3: Human activity such as we've seen over recent decades is likely to lead to warmer and warmer climates, if CO2 emissions aren't reduced and other drastic steps aren't taken. It seems to me that, given Theory 1 and Theory 2, the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to reject Theory 3, because it's basically a consequence of those two. (If you strengthen Theory 3 to include the claim that human activity over the last several decades has in fact led to warmer climates, then I agree that the burden of proof is on whoever's making that extra claim. It seems to me that the evidence for that claim is in fact very strong, and with that evidence in place the rest of Theory 3 becomes even more the default position in the absence of strong disconfirming evidence.)
yummyfajitas 17y ago
Global Warming (CO2 traps heat, causing the earth to be warmer than otherwise) is the conclusion of simple physics. Simple physics can not prove that the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans, which is what AGW claims. To do that, you need very complicated physics to prove that CO2 (and nothing else) caused the warming trend.
- lutorm 17y ago
  True. But if you know that increased CO2 causes the Earth to get warmer, and that humanity is increasing the CO2 content, it certainly seems like a plausible conclusion.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    If you know that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age, it is also a plausible conclusion that warming would have occurred in the absence of humans. To differentiate between your plausibility argument and mine, you need vastly more than "simple physics".

by lutorm 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

In particular, why do you think those that argue that AGW is not happening should be given more of a benefit of the doubt? ... if you are going to argue that it's not happening, you have much more justification to do. Because the scientific method dictates that the burden of proof is borne by the one proposing the theory. The opposite is impractical, because for most questions it's not possible to prove the open-ended negative.

gjm11 17y ago
I think talk of "the theory" is ambiguous, so let's break this down a bit. (All the claims I'm going to list should really be made in a quantitative form. They all can be; I'm just too lazy right now to look up the numbers.) Theory 1: More CO2 in the atmosphere tends to produce warmer climate. This is, on the face of it at least, a consequence of well-established physics. The burden of proof here is on anyone wishing to deny it, just as it would be for "if I drop a dachsund from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it will fall to the ground". Theory 2: Human activity over recent decades has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yup, the burden of proof here would be on those who advocate this theory. As it happens, there's no shortage of evidence. See, e.g., http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html . Theory 3: Human activity such as we've seen over recent decades is likely to lead to warmer and warmer climates, if CO2 emissions aren't reduced and other drastic steps aren't taken. It seems to me that, given Theory 1 and Theory 2, the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to reject Theory 3, because it's basically a consequence of those two. (If you strengthen Theory 3 to include the claim that human activity over the last several decades has in fact led to warmer climates, then I agree that the burden of proof is on whoever's making that extra claim. It seems to me that the evidence for that claim is in fact very strong, and with that evidence in place the rest of Theory 3 becomes even more the default position in the absence of strong disconfirming evidence.)

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Global Warming (CO2 traps heat, causing the earth to be warmer than otherwise) is the conclusion of simple physics. Simple physics can not prove that the current warming trend is caused mostly by humans, which is what AGW claims. To do that, you need very complicated physics to prove that CO2 (and nothing else) caused the warming trend.

lutorm 17y ago
True. But if you know that increased CO2 causes the Earth to get warmer, and that humanity is increasing the CO2 content, it certainly seems like a plausible conclusion.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  If you know that the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age, it is also a plausible conclusion that warming would have occurred in the absence of humans. To differentiate between your plausibility argument and mine, you need vastly more than "simple physics".