global warming

[daverupa]

Scientific consensus?

Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.

Just ridiculous, Alex.

So, what's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X. Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?

There are two significant differences.

Firstly scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.

Secondly scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than dogma (or that which is taught in Sunday school) or popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. Note that even long established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.

[Alex123]

Scientific consensus?

Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.

Just ridiculous, Alex.

It is not. Please note: "it doesn't by itself make it right."

So what I've said is technically correct. As if scientists never had incorrect ideas centuries ago.

Talking about consensus...

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.

100-36= 64% who do not believe in AGW.

So on which side is consensus?

[daverupa]

...only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers...

So on which side is consensus?

It's easy to make stats favor your argument when you artificially constrain the sample. Weak.

Remember that pie chart with the comparison of peer-reviewed articles accepting or rejecting AGW? That pie chart answers your question.

Finally, what you said was that scientific consensus equates to argumentum ad populum. You aren't technically correct, you aren't even close. No one claimed it was right solely due to consensus; the consensus reflects a long period of peer-reviewed research, not a simple majority vote.

The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers.

Did you even read this part?

[Alex123]

It's easy to make stats favor your argument when you artificially constrain the sample. Weak.

And how do we know it wasn't done in case of pie chart posted by Kim? I am not saying that it was... But I've read similar things to what you have said when it comes to AGW, that the question was tricky and that polled scientists were picked to produce certain result... If you want, I can try to find it again. But let us be clear, there are other consensus that suggest that majority of scientists do not believe in AGW.

This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis...

For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -skeptics/

Remember that pie chart with the comparison of peer-reviewed articles accepting or rejecting AGW? That pie chart answers your question.

You mean this one?

Which says: "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming".

Please note, 13,950 are climate articles. It doesn't say 13,950 articles proving that humans cause Global Warming.

And 24 do reject AGW. Without analyzing all of them, it is hard to conclude the QUALITY of facts - rather than quantity.

As for temperature predictions:

[fig tree]

This Forbes article is a good example of how the "skeptic" side tends to handle evidence. I wish I had access to the original source, but it appears to be behind a paywall. From what a self-proclaimed opponent of "climate alarmism" says, however, it appears that the survey was of a highly biased sample of geologists and engineers, not to be deceptive, but because the authors wanted to study people they count as "deniers".

For those of you who have not actually read the journal paper, here is what it is really about: some social scientists are trying to peer into the minds of “deniers” (their word choice, not mine) to see what makes them tick. What better laboratory could they find than engineers in Alberta that are likely associated with the gas and oil industry!

The authors of the paper are not saying “a bunch of smart scientist and engineer types think global warming is largely over-blown – maybe you should consider their perspective.” Rather, they are saying “Those poor engineer types up there in Alberta live in a world that revolves around oil and gas and their psyches are not able to grasp the true dangers of global warming because of the social and political structure in which they live. What are the proper tactics to bring them around to the right kind of thinking?” (Not their actual words, but my interpretation of their words.)

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013 ... te-change/

The oil and gas industry stands to lose big if the risk is taken even a fraction as seriously as it deserves to be, and one doesn't need to look down upon these people to be aware of how difficult it is to accept that what one is doing for a living might be causing a lot of harm. It's to be expected that only about 1/3 of them are fully persuaded of AGW.

Forbes is reckless in their handling of any evidence that seems to favor their preferred point of view, and so are some of the participants here.

Fig Tree

[Alex123]

Hello Fig Tree,

I hope that your argument isn't "Those who reject AGW are those with vested interest in Oil and Gas".

The point is that there are many scientists who reject AGW. I personally do not buy argument that goes something like:
"100 people agree with each other on X and 1 disagrees, therefore X is correct [simply due to that]"

There have been times in history of science when majority of scientists agreed on wrong theories and only few or one scientist had a different view that later turned out to be correct.

I disagree with misleading "climate change deniers" label that was often used. Even the so called "Skeptics" do believe that climate changes.

Also:
How much long term correlation is there between CO2 levels on Earth and temperature?
CO2 rose from 4,400 to 7,000 yet average global temperature remained steady at ~23C. (1st half of Cambrian)
CO2 fell from 7,000ppm to ~4,400 yet average global temperature remained steady at ~23C (2nd half of Cambrian)
CO2 fell from ~4,400 to 3,000 yet average global temperature was flat at ~23C (Silurian)
CO2 rose and fell between 3,000 and 4,000 yet global temperature remained at ~23C. (end of Silurian and first half of Devonian).
CO2 fell from 2,000 to ~900, yet average global temperature increased and then stayed at ~21C (Cretaceous)
*CO2 numbers are in ppm


What would make Alex believe in AGW:

To start: I don't buy: "Snow is melting and glacials are receding!"
Alex: Of course, we are living in the Holocene interglacial. By definition this is what happens in interglacial that started about 11,400 years ago.

1) somehow to refute Ice Core data that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature by 400-1200 years.
2) to prove that today's rate of rise in CO2 is significantly higher (not due to random and natural fluctuations) than it has ever been such as during Cambrian (for example).
3) To prove that there will not be negative temperature mechanism (lack of sun activity, for example) today to keep the temperature down in the near future thus negate warming the has occurred and even cause excessive cooling.

I can, in principle, accept AGW if all three points above are well explained. I am pro-environment, for better and greener energies, and I do believe that we have a real problem with oil & gas. It is going to run out and we need to find better sources of energy before that occurs. I think that reasonable reduction of carbon emissions in order to buy extra time IS GOOD.

[Buckwheat]

Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.

Just ridiculous, Alex.

It is not. Please note: "it doesn't by itself make it right."

So what I've said is technically correct. As if scientists never had incorrect ideas centuries ago.

Talking about consensus...

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.

100-36= 64% who do not believe in AGW.

So on which side is consensus?

geoscientists and engineers? Why didn't they survey climate scientists? As an engineer, I can say that my peers and I have no climate specific education, and we make our living off of "growth". This leads to a strong "fiscally conservative" bent among engineers and most of my peers are anti-AGW for no reason other than a gut feeling. I wonder why they surveyed us instead of climate scientists?

Forbes is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

[Buckwheat]

Hello Fig Tree,

I hope that your argument isn't "Those who reject AGW are those with vested interest in Oil and Gas".

No, but the people in that particular survey are vested in Oil and Gas... geoscientists and engineers in Alberta? Wow, what a representative population sample.

[Alex123]

There are climate scientists, not just engineers or geo-scientists (who I believe are intelligent enough as well) who disagree with AGW

Just an example:

William Robert Kininmonth is a retired Australian meteorologist noted for his views as an opponent of anthropogenic global warming theory and for his frequent writings on the topic of climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ki ... orologist)

William Kininmonth has a career in meteorological science and policy spanning more than 40 years. For more than a decade (1986-1998) he headed Australia's National Climate Centre with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes, including the recurring drought episodes of the 1990s.

He has extensive knowledge of global climatology, the climate system and the impacts of climate extremes developed through more than two decades associated with the World Meteorological Organization. He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology and more recently has been a consultant for implementation of its programs. He coordinated the scientific and technical review for the United Nations Task Force on El Niño following the disastrous 1997-1998 event, has participated in WMO expert working groups.

As a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992), William Kininmonth had a close association with the early developments of the climate change debate. His suspicions that the science and predictions of anthropogenic global warming had extended beyond sound theory and evidence were crystallised following the release of the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In his new book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, he demonstrates that the model of the climate system represented by the IPCC is inadequate as a foundation for future planning.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/climatechange.htm

[danieLion]

Forbes is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

It depends on what's meant by "fairness."

"Balance" of what?

What would an egineer know about fairness and balance? Survey me. My master's thesis was on restorative justice, conflict and exclusion-inclusion.

[manas]

Hello Fig Tree,
I hope that your argument isn't "Those who reject AGW are those with vested interest in Oil and Gas".

Considering my bank balance usually falls to near zero by the end of each fortnight, I seriously doubt that I've got any shares or the like in Oil or Gas yet I reject AGW. We could expect that scientists are the same - some will espouse it, others won't.

I don't have the skill that Alex has in presenting this side of the debate, but I want to again say that he is not alone in his views regarding this issue, it's just that some of us, like myself perhaps, lack either the reserves of energy or patience to continually present the vast amount of verifiable evidence that seriously casts doubt on the notion that 'the earth's climate is warming, and human Co2 emissions are the primary cause'.

I say the above with goodwill. Because, what really matters is cultivation of the Path to the ending of dukkha, and that is something we can all agree on. This dispute over AGW is like a ripple on the surface of a lake by comparison.

In peace

[danieLion]

belongs to the nature of knowledge

Such an epistemological coma makes learning new information supremely difficult...

Quite the opposite, old sport.

And I here I thought all Buddhists were opposed to scientific materialism. Silly me.

All we have to do is use our common sense.... The errors of those for whom materialism has killed all alternatives are not sublime distortions of thought which respond only to equally sublime methods of investigation; they are gross mistakes and they can be corrected with the help of a few platitudes... You can criticize science without becoming a scientist yourself. More especially, you can criticize scientific demands--demands for money, more power, greater influence in politics and especially in education--without becoming a scientist. A democratic criticims of science in not only not an absurdity--it belongs to the nature of knowledge....

It is the experience of this world that needs to be maintained, or improved if one wants to help people, which means that it is experience about this world that should be consulted, not the scientific evidence exclusively....

Mistakes occur [in science] and practical knowledge can correct the short-comings of an industrial-scientific approach. What we need...is not an increasingly aggressive applicatin of science that treats the locals as if they were idiots; what we need is a closer collaboration between experts and the people whose surroundings the experts want to judge, change, improve. Such an approach not only promises excellent results; it already achieved them in many countries. But results are not the only advantage. What is important is that the approach is much more humane than a purely objective procedure that treats ordinary people not as friends, or as potential collaborators, but as not always welcome because of rather disturbing sets of variables....

The sciences are not the last authority on the use of their produtct, their interpretation included. Questions of reality are too important to be left to the scientists.

-Paul Feyerabend, The Tyranny of Science; "The Disunity of Science" (Polity: 2012, pp. 35-6, 44, 48-9, 51)

[danieLion]

Here, here! manas.

[BlackBird]

Alex they weren't climate scientists. There's a difference.

[Buckwheat]

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warm ... sensus.htm

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warm ... ediate.htm

Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."


Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences