No one has said this better than Michael Crichton:
"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."
I've followed you here from Astronomy & Space. Personally, I do not think that any persons using Yahoo! Answers and most like only one in a hundred bloggers are qualified to criticise the climate models predicting over 5 degrees or those predicting "only" 3 degrees. Either rise is a big problem. If the models need revision, then they should be revised.
Mention has been made of some scientist "lying" about this. Now if the consensus is 97%, or 95% or even 75% the lie disappears into the noise. Yes it is reprehensible if he was lying, but does it make any actual difference?
I am reminded of working in a coal testing lab years ago. Tests were done in duplicate and a certain tolerance was allowed between the two results. If out of tolerance, say 9.5% and 10.1% the test was repeated. If a lab assistant generated too many repeats, she was unpopular with the boss. So if a test looked as if it was out of tolerance there was a temptation to fiddle the numbers to bring them back into agreement. An experienced assistant "knew" that the result should about 10% so the lower number was reported as 9.9%, in tolerance - no repeat. All very dishonest of her. Meanwhile, at the same time another assistant was testing coal from the same seam and the same depth and reporting 10.1%. Over a dozen tests or more of the same seam all giving around 10% the false result averages out.
What I am aware of is the deliberate misquotation of papers from the early 1970s by climate change "skeptics" where they claim that scientists were predicting cooling due to particulates and therefore could not be trusted. What is carefully omitted was the fact that these papers made the proviso that cooling would result if warming due to CO2 did not overtake it. Over the past decade I have seen this one trotted out several times. I also recall a TV special claiming there had been no warming over some period. The data used was subsequently found to omit then recent information and in some cases was falsified and the content of the show refuted claim by claim. Finance for the show was traced to certain interests in the USA which, unsurprisingly stood to gain if global warming was neglected.
If there are lies and errors involved in the IPCC, there are lies etc.on the other side as well.
James Annan's argument is that the equilibrium climate sensitivity set by the IPCC of 5.4 C is too high, and it is more likely close to 3 C. This is brought out in the discussion of the blog you linked to above (see Nic's comment, 2nd in the list, followed by EliRabet's, to which Annan responds further down). So using Annan's post to suggest that he now believes CO2 isn't affecting climate or causing warming, and is therefore not a problem, is at best a huge misreading of what he is saying, if not pure unadulterated sophistry.
Much as though you want it to be so, even if the sensitivity is 3 and not 4.5, it does not imply there there isn't a problem and that action is unnecessary. The lower value means we likely have until 2030 before we need to bring CO2 emissions under control, rather accepting the situation as already hopeless. You're take on the matter is like a man who goes into spontaneous remission of terminal lung cancer, and decides to celebrate he'll take up his 3-pack a day habit again. It makes no sense.
edit: The argument among the scientists about uncertainty is along the lines of "how bad will it ge and how soon will it get that bad" not "is it even a problem." You can make sophistic arguments confusing those two positions, but that's all it is. Your claim that you are not suggesting that uncertainty indicates there isn't a problem rings hollow to anyone with a shred of common sense or understands what sophistry looks like (it's a frat-boy version of clever, like when a one of your brothers was caught with his pants down on top of a passed-out high school student and he claimed he was just attempting CPR, nobody really believed him). These are word games you're playing, and history isn't going to judge people like you very well. I know I've said this before. but you should stop and consider that the only people really agreeing with you are completely out to lunch. I mean batshit crazy "we didn't land on the moon, HAARP is controlling weather" type kooks. That would sure give me pause, if the soldiers in my army looked like a well-armed versions of Alfred E. Neuman.
I failed to following the reasoning. If you can find one person that doubts the opinion of the 97%, then you're claiming that destroys the whole consensus. However that one person may have started out in the 3% to begin with. To see what the consensus is you just have to look at the peer-reviewed literature. My first reference below counted the scientific papers since 1991 and found that out of 13,950 climate articles published, only 24 rejected global warming. And, my next three references shows how 3 out of those 24 came to be published by gaming the peer-reviewed system. The fifth is a link to an analysis by John Mashey who showed the Skeptics managed to publish fourteen articles in Climate Research before they were caught gaming the peer review system.
The consensus is generally that warming has occurred in the last hundred years and humans probably played a role in that warming. I think it is all about the estimation of climate sensitivity. It is obvious to those of us with a functioning brain that the consensus is ridiculously exaggerated. Since warmmongers believe in a cause that is more important to them than science, they don't mind exaggerating the evidence including the consensus. We have a good idea of how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere but we don't really know what the CO2 concentration would be without human emissions. Those who pretend to know it would be 280 ppmV are naive. We don't know the ocean's capacity to absorb our CO2 emissions. We don't know the ocean's capacity to precipitate the excess CO2 that it absorbed. There is a great deal that we don't really have a good handle on yet.
Note: I should also point out there isn't a consensus on how much the increased CO2 concentration will affect temperature. It isn't determined by simple physics as some naive warmmongers suggest.
I suggest the agreed upon findings of the IPCC is the consensus.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.
The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
And then there are climate change deniers who largely consist of either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists.
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."
That 97% of all scientists is just bunk! It is advanced by people who are losing the debate and have nothing else. That 97% represents 75 out of 77 highly selected 'scientists'. I could get 100% on any issue given enough selectivity and cash. Anyone who couldn't get 100% according to their rules is incompetent.
Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Yes, it is time to put this discussion to bed. Unlike the intangible Climate Change and Global Warming subjects, this is a tangible possibility.
Let us start with the 31,000 in the US alone, for starters. We know their qualifications and their numbers. Let us just let the greenies start their own 'petition project' and come up with their over three million representing the other 97%. And we will even open it up to the whole world. See how gracious true scientists are? There is one stipulation, and that is that they must be as careful with acceptance as the petition project.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
We have heard about 75 of 77 scientists. Thanks for letting us know who the other 2 are.
The only thing that climate scientists have to prove their case is climate models. Their "Hockey Stick" was broken by McIntyre and McKitrick. It was considered to be the 'smoking gun' proving man-caused global warming:
MBH-98 (surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2000 years – “The Hockey Stick Graph” used by Al Gore) data was refuted by the McIntyre and McKitrick Report and needs to be removed as evidence to the ‘Global Warming Theory’. McIntyre and McKitrick recompiled the data and found that the temperature value in the 15th Century was just as high as the 20th Century. In August of 2007 Stephen McIntyre also found that 1934 was hotter than 1998. The data description is wrong. The U.S. Congress authorized The National Academy of Sciences to study and report on the issue. The Academy essentially supported the McIntyre and McKitrick Report by warning that the MBH-98 should not be used for this type of research because it “tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions”. - “Hockey Sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” – Stephen McIntyre (Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 - 2003)
-----
The only thing left for the "consensus" of climate scientists is climate models. Instead of trying to prove CO2 (and other human-emitted gases) causes warming, they try and predict the future. This "Back to the Future" idea is nothing but a Hollywood stunt and has failed them time and again. They have admitted over and over again that they need more computer power. There are too many variables instilled in our climate that they can't account for. Climate models are useless in trying to prove "Global Warming" and in predicting the future climate states. The IP CC has admitted this in their reports, but encourage climate scientists by continued funding. This has been the sole purpose (to prove man is causing "Global Warming") of the IP CC since its beginning. If you understand the history of the IP CC and its goals, then there is no doubt of why this Hollywood movie script continues to be written.
-----
"Natural Climate Variability" is over 99% responsible for our climate changes. Humans account for less than 1% of the total "Greenhouse Effect". I would conclude that the consensus is clear on who is in control of our climate. I wish they would stop giving humans so much credit. gcnp-007 is a perfect example of a Natural Climate Variability Denier.
http://drinkingwateradvisor.com/2012/03/...
The evidence is clear! gncp-007 - Your vicious spewing of garbage shows how much you are out of touch with reality. If you'd start showing real evidence instead of attacking with stupid comments, you might begin to get some credibility.
-----
Ottawa Mike - The true nature of the whole argument revolves around the idea that humans are causing the warming. We know that "Natural Climate Variability" is over 99% of the driving force of temperatures. Their argument is that the less than 1% that humans add to the Greenhouse Effect is driving temperatures up. 97% only refers to the question "Is the planet warming?".
We are familiar with the word "consensus" in climate science and the number 97% and the phrase "the science is settled". And that we've known since Arrhenius that CO2 causes warming, etc. etc.
But what does all that really mean? Well it means that most climate scientists believe the Earth is in a warming trend and that man has had a significant contribution to that.
So what's the problem? Well, the estimation of climate sensitivity is one problem. Just a few days ago a prominent warmer who is an expert in this matter has stated that the IPCC climate sensitivity estimates are likely too high: http://julesandjames.blogspot.ca/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html He talks about a recent Norwegian study and bunch of other recent ones which all come in with lower estimates than the IPCC. He even talks of one scientist lying to produce higher numbers.
Well, that's just one example. Now, a highly regarded Swedish climate scientist has also weighed in on the issue:
"Yes, humans affect the climate. But no, there is no indication that the warming is so serious that we need to panic. It says Lennart Bengtsson, one of the most highly qualified Swedish climate scientists, who has recently become "increasingly frustrated" by the debate."
"That carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases raise the temperature has been known for over 100 years, and that humans are contributing to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is by now also hardly any who doubt. But just how big is the effect of this is far from settled."
"I do not think there will be some dramatic changes (in the next IPCC report). We will take note, just as has been done continuously, that the climate system is a bit more complex than originally thought."
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/vi-skapar-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat&prev=/search%3Fq%3DVi%2Bskapar%2Ben%2Bv%25C3%25A4ldig%2B%25C3%25A4ngslan%2Butan%2Batt%2Bdet%2B%25C3%25A4r%2Bbefogat%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26tbo%3Dd%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENCA242%26biw%3D1173%26bih%3D543&sa=X&ei=BtUPUae1DOiF0QGut4GoCA&ved=0CDUQ7gEwAA
(Obviously with Google translate, there are wording issues.)
Is it time to put 97% and settled science to bed once and for all and be realistic about what we do and don't know?
If you just make stuff up and say it enough, to enough and the right people, it will become the concensus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...
It's not enough to just make up numbers and point out and holler about extreem weather, they are now trying to redraw maps.
EDIT: Rollando. The Ippc is not a scientific organization. Far from it.
