7 ms·

Yes, the title certainly is misleading based on that final paragraphs. However considering we have numerous alarming data points across the globe in 2012 relate

• ekianjo 14y ago
  "There is scientific consensus"... No, there is not. Of you have been sleeping for a few years, then. Many scientists have come out in the recent past to stand against the "global warming" theory. It is nothing like gravity where we can clearly experiment and it's predictable. Climate change is no way certain nor predictable, and anyone who pretends otherwise is either a fool or an ignorant. Climate models are based on so much data (standard variation is HUGE) that you cannot even draw a line without being laughed at by a statistician.
  • nl 14y ago
    "There is scientific consensus"... No, there is not. Sorry, but there is[1]. You are welcome to debate whether those scientist are right, and welcome to debate if other, non-climate specialists are better qualified to offer their opinion, but trying to argue against there being a consensus is misguided. [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...
  • jdlegg 14y ago
    You are wrong. My dictionary defines consensus as "general agreement" and this is clearly the case when it comes to climate science. No one in the climate science arena disagrees that the changes in CO2 levels are 1) created by burning fossil fuels 2) driving the observed warming effect and 3) that the observed warming trends are outside the levels of natural variability. The IPCC Third Assessment Report [1] outlines this in much detail. This report has been signed-off on by dozens of international science academies, including the Science Council of Japan, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Other institutions endorsing the IPCC report include NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Geophysical Union, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. If this doesn't constitute "consensus" then I would like to hear what you WOULD consider sufficient. There are MANY debates in climate science, but they are generally about the HOW's not the IF's or WHY's. [1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...
    • ekianjo 14y ago
      CO2 is not the single driver. If it were, how do you explain we do not see significant temperature increase over the past few years while there is more and more CO2 in the atmosphere. You cant have it both ways. And I repeat again, there is no consensus. Consensus in science is not like a democratic vote. The consensus in science is obtained when there is NO ONE debating anything anymore. Just like noone is casting doubt on Einstein s relativity theory in physics. Do we have that level of scientific certitude regarding climate? Hell no.
      • ktizo 14y ago
        The consensus in science is obtained when there is NO ONE debating anything anymore. No, that is called the end of science.
      • brazzy 14y ago
        Hell, yes, there is. Sure there are dissenting voices. Just like there is no shortage of cranks who claim they can disprove Einstein.
  • scarmig 14y ago
    Yes, there is. Sigh. I was coming up with a list of cites, but at this point it'd just fall on deaf ears. If you're genuinely uncommitted, just look at what's published by everything from climate journals to general interest journals, like Nature and Science. Sure, the consensus might be wrong, but it's incredibly obvious that there is one: experts are very largely of the opinion that anthropogenic carbon emissions are a major driver of climate change. Of course, I have family whose post-doc research is in this, so I might just be part of the conspiracy! Edited to add: well, just to get you started, check out NPG's specialist climate journal: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html . No article is trying to prove anything beyond their own limited theses, but it's very clear where experts are coming from.
    • ekianjo 14y ago
      Check this. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admiss... "Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008." This is coming from the GWPF itself : "It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade." So, temperature increase? Hum ? Global Warming ? Hum ?CO2 levels are exploding but no significant temperature increase from 1998 - 2008. More about so-called consensus : more than 1000 scientists worldwide dissent to "man-made global warming claims" : http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000... Talk about consensus! Here's how to "manufacture a consensus": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459...
  • paradoja 14y ago
    Yes there is. Could you name one major scientific institution related to climate science that dispute anthropogenic climate change?
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • jff 14y ago
      Major scientific institutions don't get funding for saying "Things seem to be going ok right now", they get funding for saying "Things are screwed up, here's why, and we think we can fix it". I say this as someone who works at a major scientific institution.
      • JumpCrisscross 14y ago
        We have an Institute for Creation Research [1]. There is plenty of funding for anti-climate change research. It's just not producing anything. That should give a hint as to where reality lies amidst interests. [1] http://www.icr.org/ http://www.icr.org/
        • jeltz 14y ago
          I doubt that funding is even a tiny fraction of the research money from governments. And in addition it is money that might taint your reputation for future research funding rounds. This is true in many areas of research. If you want funding there are certain opinions and buzzwords you should include when applying for funding.
          • JumpCrisscross 14y ago
            The point is that if those idiots can get funding the claim that one must toe the party line to attract funds is seriously impaired.
      • kaybe 14y ago
        Why yes, they do. Look at the LHC or major astronomic observatories - it's not like they fix a big existential problem for most people for the time being. Where do you work?
  • NathanKP 14y ago
    It's funny but I see a parallel between your line of reasoning about global warming and the reasoning of those who believe in creation, and deny evolution. There are scientists who advocate creation, not evolution and there is no easy way to "prove evolution" as an absolute fact. People have their reasons for ignoring proofs of evolution and others have their reasons for ignoring proofs of global warming.
    • jebblue 14y ago
      What degree of evolution? That things change? That this change is observable? Or that man evolved from apes. If the latter, a) why are there still apes, b) where is the missing link?
      • ktizo 14y ago
        a) We are apes, as are chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos, etc. b) I think we may have just found you.
        • julianz 14y ago
          <giggle> It's not ad hominem when the target is an ape ;-)
          • jebblue 14y ago
            Your comment was also a personal insult.
          • ktizo 14y ago
            Not true, the great apes are all classified as hominidae.
        • jebblue 14y ago
          Your comment was a personal insult.
          • 14y ago
  • ktizo 14y ago
    There is seemingly a scientific consensus among scientists in fields relevant to climatology. If we ignore all of those however, then I would agree that there isn't a scientific consensus in the general populous on climate change, especially among people who haven't bothered to look into the actual science of it particularly. Also, more data does not equal worse statistics, at least on average anyway.
• curt 14y ago
  ...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. The climate is a chaotic system and by it's very definition you can't predict or model said system. No real scientist would ever write what you just did. Is this like Einstein's cosmological constant, expansion of the universe, or any number of other supposed knowns that have been proven wrong.
  • nl 14y ago
    ...or the fact that's it's increasingly looking as if cosmic rays cause cloud formation thereby controlling climate change. No it isn't. A recent study showed that cosmic rays can, in some circumstances trigger liquid drop formation. However, it did not show that this happened often enough for clouds to be formed, let alone often enough for it to have any effect on the climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cosmic-rays-basic.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing-the-wrong-horse....
  • justsee 14y ago
    This is a perfect example of the pseudo-scientific sentiment that has been cultivated in the non-scientific community. Assert confidently that real science knows that it is impossible to model anything accurately, and that climate change concerns are guesses that will magically be proven wrong at a later date. Also, pretend that science is about 100% certainty (which it is not) and then judge climate change theories based on that figure. There is scientific consensus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-co...) that humans are causing global warming, and this is based on climate models developed and refined over decades, from a variety of scientific disciplines. Yet in the face of this reality people like yourself have no qualms dismissing the science based on their own notions of science and are entirely able to convince themselves that they hold a scientific position. I think the process is as follows: 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself you hold a scientific position.
    • 14y ago
• brc 14y ago
  Really, you linked to Mad Bill McKibbens Rolling Stone rant? The one that insists the laws of physics are changing? That guy is an embarassment as much as some of the nuttier 'there is no global warming' zealots are. Unhinged alarmism and 'big oil under the bed' is only good for preaching to the choir. Two points: - consensus isn't proof, it's just a bunch of people agreeing with each other. Scientifically, it means nothing. The list of disproven theories that once had wide consensus is deep and rich in examples. It's OK to talk about a consensus, it's not OK to use this as a line of argument that something is true. - the IPCC models are woeful at predictions, the IPCC themselves have stated as much. It's not unscientific to express doubt about the models - it's unscientific to do the opposite. The global warming movement isn't a conspiracy, but there are many interesting social phenomena that can be observed amongst it's ardent supporters.
  • justsee 14y ago
    Well yes, I thought the article captured a lot of interesting numbers. Much more useful if you skip the ad hominems (I don't care what you think of the author) and focus on critiquing the substance. What's wrong with the data? Happy to hear. Scientific consensus - no one asserted that it represents proof. You are wrong to say that scientifically it means nothing. I think you mean to say what Wikipedia says: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." However from a societal point of view it is important, which is clearly highlighted by the attempts of the energy industry to promote the idea that there isn't a scientific consensus when there is one. Obviously I take issue with the bits where you go on to talk about disproven theories and unreliability of models. You're veering off into that industry messaging which aims to convince a reader that the science we have is not solid enough to decide whether to act on emissions, which is completely false. It's a recipe I hereby label the "global warming denialist's unscientific method": 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself (and others) you hold a scientific position.
• ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  What's the global warming equivalent of "the 9/11 attack allowed a group of right-wing ideologues to rapidly advance an agenda they'd been pushing and planning for years under the (very thin) guise of responding to 9/11"? Maybe something like "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"? In both cases the loudness of the wackos on both sides has drowned out the moderates and turned it into a political/religous debate.
  • calinet6 14y ago
    > "the current global climate change caused by humankind is a convenient backdrop for a variety of eco-warriers to advance non-scientific and innumerate 'solutions' which are more about making people feel bad about themselves than about tackling the actual problems"? What about those extreme and useless people precludes us from finding real solutions to a scientifically proven problem? Forget the hippies. They'll never get anything real done. But if you find a way to produce cheap power, everything will benefit. Better sustainability is a win-win. I'm not sure why we need a scapegoat to prevent us from doing good things for the world and possibly making a boatload of money doing so (not that that's the goal, but I imagine it's the primary concern for people with such criticisms). It's completely counter-intuitive to me why people would fight this.
  • lotharbot 14y ago
    Perhaps in the same way, "since 9/11 was a real terrorist attack, we MUST respond by invading this list of countries and enacting this list of restrictions on freedom" is analogous to "since global warming is really driven by carbon emissions, we MUST respond by subsidizing these industries, enacting these stealth taxes, and forcing consumers to engage in these behaviors" On both sides, we've got the wacko conspiracy theorists. But we also have those who recognize the problem is real and want to push stupid solutions. That's another part of "drowning out the moderates".