This line is a hoot also, "In open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry". Exactly where are these societies? The people I see rejecting the consensus are precisely those that are NOT equipped with critical skill and the tools of inquiry. Let's look at some of your fellow consensus deniers on here (these people are currently all very active on YA):
1. At least one of them believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
2. One "explained" that it's cooler in winter because that's when the Earth is farther from the sun.
3. Several at least, are conspiracy theorists, that believe in some vast conspiracy that includes the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, the British Royal Family, etc.
4. One has appeared on a radio show as an expert on Bigfoot.
5. Virtually none of you knew the difference between clouds and water vapor.
6. Virtually none have any upper division training in physics, meteorology, climate science, or atmospheric science.
It would be great if people out there had the "critical skills and the tools of inquiry", but getting your information from blogs, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge Report, etc., is not a demonstration of either.
Honestly, many don't even know what the word "consensus" means. They reject it because it falls in line with the rest of their political beliefs, not because they've used their critical skills to assess the freely available data on the internet. Dream on.
EDIT: I know how much Caliservative likes answers to be classified by their logical fallacies, so he should appreciate me pointing out that his answer is an example of a "Red Herring" argument. His answer correctly points out the scientific consensus about global warming has little or no importance to science--but that is not the issue and is an an example of an irrelevant argument The scientific consensus is important to public policy, where to make decisions in a timely manner it's often necessary to act on information which will necessarily be incomplete.
As a scientist it's fine to let scientific ideas evolve as new data comes in, new theories are proved or disproved, etc. In public policy, however, that is a recipe for disaster.
EDIT for jim z: Your statements about me are as wrong as your statements about everything else, you said:
"Pegminer decided to enter climate science no doubt to save the planet, yet he pretends to be unbiased. His career depends on alarmist funding yet he is above reproach."
I entered climate science because I was interested in meteorology, and that was the closest program I could get to meteorology with leaving town. My research was not on climate change at all and neither was the funding for it. These days my income is completely from commercial ventures with no public funding at all.
EDIT for Ottawa Mike: You're funny, I answer your question as asked, using quotes from the details of your question, and you claim that is a "red herring". It's amusing that you think that answering the question you asked is somehow not relevant to your question.
And thanks for lecturing me on critical thinking, I feel so enlightened now.
More on Critical Thinking: Mike, is this the sort of "critical thinking" that you're talking about?
"Knowing that the total population of the planet is 1/1100ths the size in volume as compared to Mt. Everest's volume (above sea level) and have very little effect on the planet's weather systems?"
"Zippi62 nails it with his analysis about our size. We are next to nothing on this planet. Too much credit is given to human existence and our impact on the planet."
FINAL EDIT: I think that the vast majority of people do not reject the scientific consensus as a result of their critical thinking skills, but because of their lack of them. Where critical thinking could REALLY be used, is to accept the consensus for what it is, and then have a grown-up discussion of the best way to proceed. What I see most deniers doing is rejecting the consensus as wrong, usually for a bunch of bogus reasons, precisely to AVOID CRITICAL THINKING about what should be done.
A scientific consensus is not about a "show of hands." A scientific consensus is where the evidence is so compelling that scientists actually accept it. Anything that you learned in school was a scientific "fact" was a scientific consensus. Something "scientific" can not be a "fact" when it is in dispute. Scientific consensus include
1. The Law of Gravity
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics
3. The Germ Theory of Disease
4. That Earth goes around the Sun
The geocentric universe was never a scientific consensus, as it was accepted in Medieval times because it was taught by Aristotle. It was not arrived at by the scientific method.
Regarding global warming, the evidence is that global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
It is the denialists who are guilty of dogma. Produce some actual evidence, not just some snowstorm somewhere or some glacier which is growing rather than shrinking. And don't just assume that scientists are confounded by an event or even a trend. If you wonder if they are confused, ask them.
< Past natural variability has been calculated by subtracting the effect of the CO2 warming.>
From my link, no
"Despite all these lines of evidence, many known climatic cycles are often trumpeted to be the real cause, on the Internet and in the media. Many of these cycles have been debunked on Skeptical Science, and all of them either aren't in the warming phases, don't fit the fingerprints, or both."
Nothing about subtracting the effect of CO2 warming.
Norm
What do the emails say about
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissio...
2. The laws of thermodynamics? http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynami...
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing? http://co2now.org/
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontr...
4. This CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
5. The Earth's temperature is increasing? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
6. Natural factors which influence climate would be cooling the Earth if not for anthropogenic CO2? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
>>"In open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry, not least enabled by the information revolution provided through the Internet, the ethos of science as open, questioning, critical and anti-dogmatic should and can be defended also by the public at large. <<
Oh yeah? Then why can't 75% of Americans answer these three questions: (1) How long does it take the earth to orbit the sun; (2) approximately what % of the earth is covered with water, and: (3) did human and dinosaurs live at the same time?
The physical evidence doesn't support the hypothesis. They try and tie any major weather event to AGW.
Zippi62 nails it with his analysis about our size. We are next to nothing on this planet. Too much credit is given to human existence and our impact on the planet. We look at it through small windows called the media. It would be great if National Geographic would do an analysis on how big the planet really is. They are just as complicit in perpetuating the "Global Warming" claim and doubt they would ever do that for people.
---------------------------------------...
pegminer - All of the research in the world doesn't change the facts that all of the weather events in the past 30 to 40 years are well within normal climate variability. Extra CO2 does not warm the planet as you and all of the other alarmists here have stated on several occasions. Critical thinking gave us the runaway greenhouse warming effect that never materialized. Critical thinking gave us catastrophically rising sea levels. Critical thinking gave us 2 to 4.5 degree Celsius rise in temperatures from the greatest computer modeler on the planet which is now projected at 1 degree Celsius and may not make it to that point either. Critical thinking has caused ****** to go bald because he keeps scratching his head trying to figure out why things didn't come out the way his fellow AGW scientists had told him. Keep scratching ******! You'll get it all eventually.
---------------------------------------...
For Prico - http://climateclash.com/the-limits-of-ca...
Do some history research and try and understand why higher CO2 levels in the past didn't fry the planet to the point where it was uninhabitable.
Simple weather observations tell most of the story. Nothing much has changed. Media outlets don't seem to be very alarmed either. If it was such a big concern, then it would surely be a big news story. I don't see much except for a casual mention of it.
Catastrophic predictions falling well short maybe?
Better understanding of how CO2 works?
No "runaway effect"?
Knowing that the total population of the planet is 1/1100ths the size in volume as compared to Mt. Everest's volume (above sea level) and have very little effect on the planet's weather systems?
There are two problems with the 'consensus' view: 1) the studies that claim the existence of the consensus are scientifically invalid; and 2) even if the a consensus did exist, it would be logically irrelevant. A call to go with the consensus is an appeal to social proof. A 'scientific consensus' is an oxymoron.
"It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
―Bertrand Russell
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
―Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg, Hurricane Research Division of NOAA
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had."
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."
"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
―Michael Crichton, "Aliens cause global warming"
The appeal to the 'scientific consensus' is an effort to stop discussion, and end the critical thinking among the listeners. Their judgment must be suspended, and replace by that of the 'experts', who make then pronouncements that must not be questioned.
“Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants.”
―F. A. Hayek (1944). “The Road to Serfdom”
Peggy:
In direct answer to your question: Consensus is not science.
Google "Climategate" and you'll see one reason why.
Take a close look at the studies that supposedly "prove" global warming; specifically, look at who funded the studies, and you'll see another reason why.
The big problem we've seen is that there has been little debate. The pro-global-warming crowd is saying "Global warming is real, mankind is causing it, you should believe it because we say so, and anyone who doesn't believe it is an idiot." That's hardly an open, questioning, critical, and anti-dogmatic platform.
Make no mistake: Many of the environmentalists who are pushing the global warming agenda are every bit as zealous about it as evangelical Christians who look to share their faith with others. Simply put, global warming has become their religion. These people accuse Christians of blind faith in something that can't be proven but fail to see their own hypocrisy.
<<(Note: There's lots of other interesting stuff in that report as well.)>>
Not surprising really as it was commissioned by a Norwegian oil- and gas exploration company (Det Norske AS) and written by a social-anthropologist who specializes in "Social and Cultural Anthropology, Organizational Behavior, Management, Political Economy, International Relations, Sociology of Work, and Anthropology".
If only he had bothered to study climate science.
With that in mind, it is no surprise that Mr R?yrvik mentions such hot denier issues as Climategate, the Hockeystick, refers to WUWT as a source for information and reaches his non-peer reviewed conclusions for his client, a Norwegian Oil- and Gas exploration company.
Edit @ Mike:
<< I think some people don't accept the "consensus" just based on answers like the one you just gave where all subject matter was avoided and everything was concentrated on the author, the funding source, the motives and the alleged conspiracy.>>
On the contrary, I looked at the report as a real skeptic and did not overlook important aspects of it, aspects which you did miss, it appears.
This report was commissioned by an oil- and gas extraction company and is therefore extremely important what exactly the assignment was. The abstract gives a clue: "This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public "battlefield" that plays arguably some of the most pressing issues of our time."
In other words, the assignment was to list the main positions of both AGW proponents and contrarian and specifically NOT to specify who is wrong and who not. And how could he, he is not a climate scientist nor anything remotely related.
And it is this lack of climate expertise which is most certainly to blame for the blunders in this 'research'. All the author does is list some AGW proponent claims (more often than not backed up by extensive peer-reviewed science) and then puts a more often then not non-peer-reviewed denier argument against it. And that's it, case closed for the author and his Norwegian Oil- & Gas Extraction company. He does no further research whatsoever to check the validity of the denier arguments (not unimportant, me thinks).
With this totally unscientific approach he comits blunder after blunder. Opinion pieces in Forbes Magazine by non climate scientists are all of a sudden equally valid as a Science Journal published peer reviewed paper by Naomi Oreskes, the fact that critics of Oreske's paper have fossil fuel ties is ignored as well as the fact that at least one of those critics (Benny Peiser) revised his criticism later.
But it gets 'better': on page 42/43 he writes:
"An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW is the site Popular Technology, that has assembled more than 1100 peer-reviewed scientific papers that voices various arguments that are in different types of disagreement and tension towards the alleged
consensus. According to the site: “The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.39 The site has, TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, answered, rebutted and reacted appropriately to all critique it has received concerning the collection." (Emphasis added)
PopularTechnology, THE site which has distorted, cherry-picked and lied about the true contents (not to mention Conclusions) of mostly real science and which is written and maintained by a computer technician with not scientific background whatsoever (but by someone with a loooong and well documented history of trolling on a variety of subjects as a result of which he's been banned from 'prestigious' discussion sites such as James Randi's and ArsTechnica), is listed by this author as 'an excellent place" which has "answered, rebutted and reacted appropriately to all critique it has received concerning the collection". LMAO
When you accept scientific consensus, or stop to question, then you are losing your right to democracy.
Everything should be open to debate or question, if not it becomes dictatorship and you are on the road to those countries and places where if you question you get arrested or just disappear.
Because they are idiots. There may well be reasons to question the consensus view, but among the majority of denialists it's just parrotting the ******** their handlers feed them. How does it feel to be a brainless shill?
Could this be a possible reason why not?
"It is not uncommon to seek to close scientific debates prematurely, but although seemingly substantial efforts are being made to do so in the case of AGW, they have not fully succeeded. We might add, in light of the findings in this report the scientific debate should (and most likely will) continue on its own terms, unhampered to the extent possible by ideological constraints."
"In open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry, not least enabled by the information revolution provided through the Internet, the ethos of science as open, questioning, critical and anti-dogmatic should and can be defended also by the public at large.
Efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of Science, seems largely to produce ridicule, opposition and inaction, and ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies." http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf
(Note: There's lots of other interesting stuff in that report as well.)
The dumbest ones are incurably duped by fossil fuel industry seed-funded deceptions. Slightly less dumb ones recognize that fossil fuel industry deceptions are inconsistent and unreliable, but they lamely copy-paste them anyway. Half way intelligent ones come to YA to practice making their anti-science lies a little less stupid.
Ultimately it is fairly simple, you can trust 100+ Nobel prize winning scientists from all around the world and of all shades of political persuasion, or you can trust the proven lies of Koch, Exxon-Mobil and their hired politicians and crackpot wannabe conspiracy theorist nitwit dupes.
Almost every major science academy, university science department, and science textbook from around the world for decades (links below).
VS
Billy: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Mike here has learned to hide his Qs and As to cover up the clumsier deceptions and more howling hypocrisies within his paranoid barrage of fake questions mostly recycled from Wattsup (a popular but not very savvy fossil fuel industry tool).
.. .. ..
I read this yesterday and it seems to fit as a good reason.
<<
Note: Pegminer decided to enter climate science no doubt to save the planet, yet he pretends to be unbiased. His career depends on alarmist funding yet he is above reproach. I remember he blamed me for Obama getting elected because the Republicans were just too radical for him and that is just after they nominated McCain the most leftist Republican known to man. And this was after he pretended to be unbiased because he used to be a Republican.
Consensus is not science. There is no man made global warming. The earth's temps have moderated over the past 15 years. This Spring, we are experiencing the lowest temps on record for this time of the year.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
I don't know. Why don't you?? http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
You posted a bad link in response to me " Sorry, we can't find the page you're looking for. Try searching:"
