Scientist don't know for sure how the climates on a warmer planet will react, but scientist do know that CO2 causes the earth to retain more heat. The only major dispute I see in the scientific community are about the feedbacks and the effects of global warming. Some propose it is negligible others propose it is catastrophic. As for me I will go with the IPCC which is sceptical of both extremes. Now I am fully aware that we do not have any other earth like planet nearby that scientist can experiment on, so they have to do with computer models in order to do predictions.
The consensus is that of 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming' science papers which did express a position on AGW, 97% stated that humans are causing global warming. [1]
The "authority" in science comes from academic knowledge of an area. And when it comes to climate change, one I am well aware of that I do not possess and accept the consensus of 97% of the scientist because that is the BEST information I have available. Just like I rely on a doctor (who passed mainstream exams to get her degree) for my medical care rather then an electronics engineer. And rely on an electronics engineer to design the computer I use to convey my thoughts.
To me there is no shame in me not knowing something. I am human, I rely on others for their expertise in their particular subjects, we all do. That does not mean you are not allowed to question them, nor does it mean they are always right. But I do know sufficient to understand that nothing the deniers here on YA have come up with makes sense. So I will accept the best information I have available to vote on. (if I were to vote)
"By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content." http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organiza...
The IPCC gives itself authority.
The consensus is that 97% of scientists agree that the Earth has been warming and CO2 is causes some warming. So what?
_______________________________________...
@Some1Has: You do realize that authority has several different definitions of which control or governance is one. There is also this one:
5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
In the context of scientific reports such as those of the IPCC it is clear that the above definition applies since the document is not a governance document.
Also, this question asked about "scientific authority" which is pretty good context to apply to what I had claimed the IPCC was giving itself in my original answer.
If you're going to go the extra mile to try to knock me down (for whatever personal reasons you may have), you might at least try to be accurate.
_______________________________________...
@Some1Has: You completely ignored the issue. You stated about me:
"Ottawa Mike knows the context of the word "authority" as it is being used here. However, he tries to make it appear as to if the word "authority" is being used as if it is a governance over all concerned. "
You are the one who is being misleading. I explained clearly that I meant "scientific authority". I made no mention of governance. And all context in this question has to with scientific authority and nothing to do with governance.
If you want to discuss whether the IPCC is claiming self scientific authority or not, then fine. That's the way I read their statements. But to bring up governance and use that as a avenue of critique, well that's simply misleading, which is exactly what you were accusing me of ironically.
"He could not do so and still maintain the thought that the IPCC has authority over us."
That's a thought you invented about me. I would never in a million years think the IPCC has some sort of governance authority. I have trouble seeing it as a scientific authority or an authority on anything.
I have read pieces like this since I was a kid and I recognized them for their bias even that far back and I wasn't even a conservative then.
<<
We are at a turning point, huuungh
I noticed that Jonathan Turley, a very leftwing constitutional lawyer said this
"We Are Now At A Constitutional Tipping Point In Our System"
Alarmists don't seem at all worried about tipping points when they really matter. They just like to dream up fake ones.
FSM, if you are so sure gravity exists, why don't you show us an example of a gravity wave. Did you consider that gravity may be something else, such as bending of space and therefore not existing in any real sense. What is the point?
There is consensus among published climatologists that GW is caused by humans regardless of this persons "opinion" which is all it is. And what is this guys degree in that he can say unequivocally there is no consensus?? He claims he has no authority but this is an authoritative view
it is not a secret that the Earths'as reef's are in danger from increased CO2 in the ocean's heating them up and lowering the PH
So the consensus here is "the conclusion of the world's most qualified coral reef experts" I don't see where this is necessarily an organized body with any authority and frankly don't see how his comment applies here.
Som1 Isn't it the UN that gives the IPCC authority
JimmyKeep dreaming and you might come to grips with AGW reality instead of your fantasy
No, no, no, you have it all wrong, Zippy. No further inquiry is allowed on the issue of AGW because the 97% consensus has been reached. Any one who tries is subject to ridicule. That's how AGW science works.
It's different.
"Who is the "consensus" or the "scientific authority"?" - This is not even a question, Zippie62. Ask this question of everyone you meet and watch the dazed look on their faces when they ask you, "What are you talking about?".
As for the quote of the commenter that you posted, I seriously doubt that the commenter has a PhD in any field of study that would relate to climate change. I will go so far as to question as to if this person has a PhD in any field of study. The commenter writes so poorly that I seriously doubt that the person has any formal education at all! Should I be wrong about this then I will kiss this person's PhD in broad daylight and on the main street of any city this person would chose for me to do so on. I will even offer this person 3 days to draw a crowd and to sell tickets to the event!
You misread what is meant by the use of the word "authority" in this context. "Authority", when used in this context, is in the leading level of knowledge that is possessed on the subject at hand by an individual or a group of individuals.
Ottawa Mike knows the context of the word "authority" as it is being used here. However, he tries to make it appear as to if the word "authority" is being used as if it is a governance over all concerned. Why did Ottawa Mike not quote the entire paragraph that he pulled his quote from concerning the IPCC? I know why. Should he have done so then his attempt to mislead would have shown us his attempt to mislead us. Here is the entire paragraph that Ottawa Mike quoted from - "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." - Now do you see why Ottawa Mike did not want to quote the entire paragraph? He could not do so and still maintain the thought that the IPCC has authority over us. The IPCC possess no such authority over our governance! Period! It never has and it never will!
Here is an example of the how the word "authority is being used when it is placed into the proper context as to how it is being used by the IPCC - "White Shark Africa is a world leading white shark cage diving, filming and shark conservation company. The company is co-owned by Craig Ferreira and Christo Kruger. Craig is one of the world’s leading authorities on Great White Sharks, has conducted many research world firsts, has appeared in numerous documentaries, has published two books on the Great White Shark and speaks on this species around the world." - Source: http://www.whitesharkafrica.com/sharkwar... - Now do you see why and HOW the IPCC is an authority on climate change?
Added****
Ottawa Mike - "The IPCC gives itself authority."
There is not anything in what you said with that substantiate your claim with this comment. The IPCC does not give itself authority, so you either misunderstood that governments recognize that the IPCC as an authority on climate change or you lied. Which is it?
I was accurate, as you have even noted the proper context in as to how the word "authority" was being used here.
I do not seek you out, Ottawa Mike. There are many times that I do not respond to anything that you post. I do respond to your obvious attempts to mislead and misinform us. I seek to destroy lies and to highlight others that will propagate lies. Stick to the truth when you post and I will not ignore you by giving you a "thumbs up", as I have in the past.
Added****
C, no the UN does not give the IPCC authority for anything other than to compile, review and report out on the science concerning climate change. The UN also recognizes the IPCC as the leading authority concerning climate change in the sense of the knowledge it has on the subject and not with any authority over policy making. The IPCC DOES NOT set policy over the governance of any nation in any way or fashion. The goal of maintaining the warming to 2C is a political decision agreed on by the member nations and not a decision based on the science. The science can only say what needs to be done to maintain a warming at or below 2C. How governments respond to this information is entirely up to them.
Every time we see some alarmist BS like this it's almost always about getting more research money from a government.
Understanding science is better than asking whether we want to believe the "warmers" or the "skeptics."
http://news.yahoo.com/time-running-great-barrier-reef-scientists-043227217.html
"If we don't increase our commitment to solve the burgeoning stress from local and global sources, the reef will disappear," University of Queensland reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said.
I read through the comments and found this conscientious objector's comment interesting :
" ... I'm not commenting on related hypotheses or findings, but the concept of a 'scientific consensus' is an internal contradiction. Science permits no arguments to be made from opinion or consensus. I know that publishers think that 'peer review' is important, but when it comes to science arguments based on peer review also have no status. The only arguments that should bear in these matters are those based on observations that are reliable and, if possible, repeatable. The concept of a 'scientific authority' is also an internal contradiction, as science does not permit any arguments from authority. I have a Ph.D. and have done a lot of advanced research, and all of my experience gives me no authority whatsoever. I never thought that it should, since I respect the philosophy of objective scientific inquiry. ... "
Who is the "consensus" or the "scientific authority"?
