How can global warming skeptics deny the scientific consensus is important and real?
Consensus is important in science. The only way it can be cleanly decided if something is "scientifically proven" is whether or not the scientific community accepts it as proven. There is no "Supreme Court" to decide, and there are always a few skeptics. The scientific community decides what the rules for proof are, and applies them.
You can personally choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. But that's not science. In doing so, you are rejecting science and proven scientific facts. The same is true for global warming.
2007-06-17T09:26:09Z
The scientific consensus that global warming is real and mostly caused by us is documented by hundreds of papers in the peer reviewed literature, and the resulting support from virtually every major scientific organization.
See the hundreds of references contained in: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html and
"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, or any scientific program at the [climate] meetings. If you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at [the meetings] on this topic that support your view - you won't be able to."
NOAA Ph.D.
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [global warming] than on any issue I know ... You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
NOAA Ph.D.
2007-06-17T14:30:32Z
Bob TV - You quote a few skeptics. Your own site says they're a small minority. Why believe them over the vast majority? Compact fluorescent light bulbs don't pollute, they REDUCE mercury pollution.
Ken C - There have been natural changes. But the scientific data clearly shows this warming is not natural. The websites above show that that's the view of the vast majority of scientists.
"Global cooling" in the 70s was the idea of just a few scientists, with little data, and no backing from any major scientific organization. The "global cooling" guys were like the minority skeptics of today, not like the majority.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
2007-06-17T14:43:18Z
eric c- The Oreskes study is correct. The criticisms of it are the lies.
Once again two skeptics are cited. Their views have been considered and rejected by the scientific community.
SomeGuy2007-06-17T09:31:22Z
Favorite Answer
Well, technically we aren't looking for =proof=, since you can't prove a scientific theory. The consensus is important to lay people like you and me because it means that the science is in, and that scientists virtually all agree on the issue. I don't have the technical savvy needed to understand the more complicated bits of the theory, so at some point or another I've just got to take somebody at their word. And it helps if I know that the scientific community is backing me when I do this.
It was faulty logic brought the skeptics to the arguments against the consensus. They claim that 'consensus doesn't equal science'. And usually follow this statement up with a highly improbable analogy like 'if scientists came to a consensus about the world being flat, would you believe that too?'. Presumably to suggest that scientists would actually say something like that without a boatload of evidence to back it up. Of course you and I know better. Consensus doesn't ever come before the science, consensus is what you have when all the science has been done. But leave it to the contrarians to completely and utterly miss the point, as they seem wont to do.
In 1988 newsweek published an article saying global warming is real, and there was scientific consensus. So before the study of global warming even began the propaganda was already out on the so called consensus.
The Oreskes study says that there is NO disagreement in peer review literature. That is a lie. Now they are saying 90% consensus. If they lied about the Oreskes study, I am sure they are lying now.
But if consensus is proof, then why do you and others make the claim the 20th century is the warmest century on record, based on a few studies? Soon and Balinus(2003) studied over 100 temperature reconstruction records and concluded:
"Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century surface thermometer global warming. The picture emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide. Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century warming means a global human impact. However, the proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually warm or extreme."
Ummm what consensus. The National Organization for Climatologists came out with a statement signed by over 9,345 climatologists that states there is NO consensus since the data is NOT solid. Right now global warming is still classified as theory amongst scientists not fact. Real science embraces debate, not discourages it. Only those with a hidden agenda try to squelch debate and opposing views. Show me one scientist that can absolutely claim global warming is real and that will be the first one. Mars is undergoing a warming too, with the same conditions but you ignore that, how scientific can you really be? Piece of advise, stop reading blogs and go to another topic, this one is beyond your comprehension. Thanks for the easy 2 points.
Let's say for a moment there is Global Warming, and that we all believe it is real. Most feel it is not Man Made. How do the scientists explain the Global Warming that Almost eliminated Reptiles, and allowed Dinosaurs to Flourish for 220,000,000 years? Then that Global Cooling, killed off the Dinosaurs, allowing Mammals to grow? Then the Global Warming 3,000,000 years ago that allowed the earliest precursors of Man to begin? Then the Global Cooling, that allowed the Neanderthal Man to flourish in Europe and the Middle East during the Ice Age? Then the Global Warming that caused the downfall of the Neanderthal (Lack of being able to adapt) which allowed Homo Sapien (Modern Man) to become the "Human Life Form"? I fail to see how Man had ANY effect on the thousands of Global Warming or Global Cooling Cycles that went on throughout the ages, Millions of years before Man was even around? Finally, how did we go from the 1970's, with Scientists Predicting the Next Ice Age from Man Made Global Cooling, and Trust Me, with all the fervor that we now have Scientist predicting Global Warming? Essentially using the same data? Just food for thought. If we want to talk about Pollution being bad, let's say so and EVERYONE do their part. I do. But as far as a Panic over Man Made Global Warming, I have to pass, as the Same Scientist will also tell you that this climate change has happened Thousands of Times over the last 500,000,000 on Earth...
The "skeptics" aren't skeptics in the philosophical sense (I doubt they even know who the Skeptics were). As to why they disregard the scientific consensus--its obviousl they don't understand science, the proces of scientific debate, or what a consensus means.
You have to realise that culturally, if not literally, these people are all bound up in the religious right-wing subculture. For them, because they've been told "environmentalism" is "liberal ideology" (which it isn't, of course) it is quite literally an article of faith that it must therefore be false.
They also don't realize--because they've been taught--and follow the example of people like Bush who believe--that sceintific questions are subject to the same kind of debate and can beresolved by the same methods as political questions. Good example being the efforts of Bush to change the outcome of the scientific debate by ordering the censoring of scientific reports.
These people realy believe that such methods can affect the scientific results!