Alex123 wrote:daverupa wrote:Alex123 wrote: 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?
Alex123 wrote:Hello Fig Tree,
I hope that your argument isn't "Those who reject AGW are those with vested interest in Oil and Gas".
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 ... eorologist)
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.
Buckwheat wrote:Forbes is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Alex123 wrote:Hello Fig Tree,
I hope that your argument isn't "Those who reject AGW are those with vested interest in Oil and Gas".
daverupa wrote:Such an epistemological coma makes learning new information supremely difficult...
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)
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.
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."
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
This is an assumption of those who believe in the "objectivity" and unity of science. The history of science not only shows that some scientists beleive in objectivity and some don't but that science has never been unfied philosophically, theoretically or methodologically.Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing....
This is a naive and uninformed view 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.
Only you if you ignore the principle of iteration.But the testing period must come to an end.
Science is always political.So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
How could it be long-term? The measurements comprise an insufficient sample."...scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009)
This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
Why do they need to? And when they do, why would they rely on the corrupt peer-review process?Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.
This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?
My point is larger than that: scientists who take comfort is consensus are ignorant of the history of science and method. Believing that consensus is a task of scientists is just one methodoligical belief of some scientists in some sciences.
A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.
This may sound really unsatisfying and self-contradictory at first. Isn’t skepticism about critical thinking? About being open to any idea (or none) as long as it survives rational deliberation? Doesn’t this consensus thing mean that the whole movement is actually just kowtowing to white-coated authority? Well, yes and no.
To begin with, let’s remember that there are many people who are strongly skeptical of certain ideas, but who are not counted as part of the skeptical movement. Take Holocaust skeptics, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics. In the skeptical community, we call them denialists. Why? Because their views go against scientific consensus.
Science presupposes that all participants have a skeptical frame of mind and arrive at conclusions through rational deliberation. If a large group of knowledgeable people working in this way arrive at a consensus opinion, then there is really no good reason for anybody with less knowledge of the subject to question it. Informed consensus is how scientific truth is established. It’s always provisional and open to reevaluation, but as long as there’s informed consensus, then that’s our best knowledge. Humanity’s best knowledge.
BlackBird wrote:I'll quote a fellow skeptic:A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.
Take Holocaust skeptics, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics.
Alex123 wrote:I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
BlackBird wrote:Alex123 wrote:I find it strange how some believe in AGW merely due to some people agreeing on it rather than to actual arguments.
I hope you're not refering to me, because if you are you're quite mistaken.