The climate science contrarian community has mobilized the full spectrum of emotional appeals all intended to reject science and shut down critical thinking.
From the Alt-right Bannon and his Breitbart absurd fabrications, that the faithful embrace with uncritical passion.
To the voices appearing that present themselves as sober clear headed arbiter of scientific validity.
One of latter’s most misused memes is
"My choice is to choose factual science over consensual science."
Doesn't that sound good.
After all isn't consensual science something like consensual sex - all in the eyes of the perpetrator - er, I mean participant?
Or is it a red flag warning that we are dealing with a disingenuous deliberate misinformer? :blank:
What this little
contrarian meme leaves out is that scientific consensus is wholly built upon the body of evidence and facts.
It also ignores that the consensus is subordinate to the facts and that the consensus evolves according to the incoming FACTS.
WIKI: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.
Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.
Although for a better introduction to the topic:
"Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?"
Robert Sanders, September 25, 2016
https://futurism.com/what-is-scientific-consensus/
REACHING A CONSENSUS ON CONSENSUS
A scientific consensus, in general, is what most scientists believe to be true about a certain issue based on their interpretation of all of the evidence that we have at our disposal. In other words, it is the collective answer of scientists to a particular question. ...
Hence, the birth of a scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majoritarian rule. It actually signifies the fact that a great many scientists from different backgrounds have considered the question at hand and have reached similar conclusions.
That doesn’t mean that science is a panacea—it doesn’t mean that science is perfect or always 100% correct. It is important to remember that science is adaption; it’s change. But what it does mean is that we have a pretty good understanding of how things work, and it will take a mammoth amount of evidence to change our current understanding. ...
... In short, a scientific consensus tells us things that we have already learned, and it lets us know when things have stopped being debated in the sciences.
LETTER • OPEN ACCESS • IOPSELECT
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Here's a change for the
https://skepticalscience.com detractors to step up with their "facts" (not distracting hot air!) if they want to dispute this paper.
So can anyone explain what the gripe with the EXPERT'S COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING, that would be their consensus, is?
A few years ago, I had a weeks long argument with Jim Steele, who I think you know, about those words. I said “the consensus is the data”, and he went on to quote that now and again whenever it made him feel good. I could tell by his multiple laughing face icons. I explained what I meant at the time and re-explained it a few times, until I realized he was unable use the gray matter between his ears. I think it’s hard for people because it is trusting a process, not a person. We like things to agree with our parents or grandparents said, and if we’re lucky we continue to trust those people into old age. Realizing they are flawed is one of the more traumatic experiences of life.
A few years ago, I had a weeks long argument with Jim Steele, who I think you know, about those words. I said "the consensus is the data", and he went on to quote that now and again whenever it made him feel good. I could tell by his multiple laughing face icons. I explained what I meant at the time and re-explained it a few times, until I realized he was unable use the gray matter between his ears. I think it's hard for people because it is trusting a process, not a person. We like things to agree with our parents or grandparents said, and if we're lucky we continue to trust those people into old age. Realizing they are flawed is one of the more traumatic experiences of life.
Oh yeah I know the man. And that total disconnect of the gray cells from reality is a true tragedy.
In fact our (Steele and me) interaction could provide John with a little more understanding for how my normally nice demeanor has become a bit harsh towards transparent deception.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/landscapesandcycles.html
I notice that none of the usual suspects who love denigrating scientific consensus with cheap potshots are capable of showing up for this discussion.
Phony is as phony does. :long:
Oh but I’m supposed to be pussy polite to such malicious deceivers - sorry I’m all grown up now, and my humor for such base criminal behavior is gone.
Criminal in the eyes of ALL of our remaining younger generations, guarant-damned-t’d! 
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/news-and-events
“This is what the data predicts” no one who claims to be a scientist would claim it is “scientific fact”. All things are open to question, but that does not give warrant to those who would intentionally falsify the data as means to their own end.
I believe the general consensus based on the information I have obtained second hand. But I can see how those others could maintain their doubt. Since it takes years of study and expensive experiments for you to interpret the data first hand and truly understand it. The problem is education; if America could actually educate people to understand concepts instead of the surface understanding that comes with just “Googling” something the whole country would be in a better place.
It may be considered indoctrination, but if all the people of a reasonable intelligence were actually taught from elementary school to experiment and interpret data for themselves instead of to pass standardized tests then I don’t think this situation would exist. P.s.free college for all.
During that weeks long conversation I mentioned above, another, even less of a critical thinker, chimed in with this from Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time.
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.
The problem was, he had a few samples of a "single observation" to try to bring down the theory but they were simply outliers of data, or anecdotal, or sometimes even comments from emails. He was confusing confirmation bias with an actual experiment that changes the consensus. He misses (or dismisses) that key final phrase "or modify". Every new piece of data on ocean temps or methane in the arctic modifies the theory to a tiny a degree, but AGW remains solid.
During that weeks long conversation I mentioned above, another, even less of a critical thinker, chimed in with this from Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time.
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.
The problem was, he had a few samples of a "single observation" to try to bring down the theory but they were simply outliers of data, or anecdotal, or sometimes even comments from emails. He was confusing confirmation bias with an actual experiment that changes the consensus. He misses (or dismisses) that key final phrase "or modify". Every new piece of data on ocean temps or methane in the arctic modifies the theory to a tiny a degree, but AGW remains solid.
There's another thing. Hawking's is a physicists studying the most fundamental laws of nature, read simplest.
We are dealing with
"Systems science" as opposed to simplistic controllable lab experiments -
not that there's anything simplistic about CERN, still . . .
The Truth About Global Warming - Science & Distortion - Stephen Schneider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_eJdX6y4hM&t
1:40 - " Climate science is Systems Science, like trying to understand your body. ..."
Here's an interesting one I haven't seen on the internet yet.
Carl Sagan's 2/9/1990 keynote speech before the 5th Annual Emerging Issues Forum at NCSU
broadcast live on North Carolina Public Television.
Introduction .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itqoST7JHAQ
Published on Jun 26, 2017 by Kenneth Acencio:
Climate scientist Stephen Schneider talks climate change. Dr. Stephen Schneider is one of the most notable and outspoken scientists on the topic of climate .
A historical perspective on past climate messaging.
The late Stephen Schneider explains the science behind climate change and answers questions from the skeptics. .
Earth is a complex organism, understanding Earth's geophysics and biosphere are not amenable to the simplistic Popperian formula -
which I'm told by deep thinkers has some serious flaws of its own.
Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism
Nicholas Dykes
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htm
INTRODUCTION
...
It is thus surprising to discover that Popper himself hardly lived up to this ideal of non contradiction. When one examines Critical Rationalism, for example, one soon notices that it is based on questionable premises; that its internal logic is seriously flawed; that it is inconsistent with other elements of Popper's thought; and that it leads to conflicts with his own publicly stated convictions.
{From a "libertarian at that, interesting. Most people I've see wave the Popperian Diversion around are libertarians desperate to deny the reality and implications of manmade global warming.}
Scientific consensus is valid if used in a scientific method. Scientific consensus should not be used when human belief is substituted for science.
Bloodletting was the treatment of choice and used on our first president. The consensus was in favor of bloodletting as being scientific as publications by Philip Pye-Smith and others defended bloodletting on scientific grounds. Medical Journal backed scientific-minded physicians who pursued the efficacy of bloodletting.
Then we have the most famous Michelson-Morley “failed" ether wind experiments in modern times.
In the 1970’s we had the world moving into a new Ice Age and a scientific consensus that if we reburned our nuclear fuel waste. We could burn it into a non-nuclear material.
The common factor on all these scientific consensuses was the human factor of believing that if enough scientists backed a hypothesis. The hypotheses then became a theory. And that is what CC is pushing on her scientific consensus. There is a lot of name calling and labeling going on in this CO2 scientific consensuses. But none of that is answering the unanswered questions on the table.
For those who are not following the issue. The question at hand is – “What is the primary driving force of Global Warming". CC is saying Climate Change (man-made heat) is the primary driving force of Global Warming and has a lot of backing from the green movement and the left. The government is saying that we don’t know for sure what the primary driving force is at this time.
Nobody is denying that CO2 is not a major anthropogenic gas and has a warming effect. The question at hand is that Global Warming (nature) is the primary driving force and that all the warming caused by the anthropogenic gases are accelerating the natural Global Warming and adding a little extra heat.
The green movement and the Left wants to tax and regulate now based upon what they are claiming to be consensus science. They are distorting and bending the scientific facts to the point of creating total confusion. The term “Climate Change" is used to separate man-made weather from natural weather. But CC and the movement have twisted the process so much that this week the government had to start using the term “Extreme Weather" to counter balance the false science that is being encouraged by CC and the Left.
False claims, unanswered questions, name calling, labeling is not a very good educational method and makes logical debating of the issues almost impossible. This scientific consensus being used in Climate Change has all the above and is highly distorted. Let’s do it right the first time and use real science.
CC, the above post goes with the fist part of your beginning post. The spam would not let me post reply to your post. Sorry.
short list of errors in Mike’s post
Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus
using a one-off article that was never peer reviewed, and was never the consensus, to comment on the current consensus
Abusing the definition of “theory”
Referring to the “human factor”. What other factor is there?
Defining “Climate Change” as “man-made heat”
Saying, “The government is saying”
Don’t have the time to dissect that, but I wonder do you understand what “scientific consensus” actually is?
I ask because it seems you mistake news stories and media hype for “scientific consensus”.
I may not be as smart as you, but I know those ain’t scientific consensus and I understand the difference between the two!
Do you?
short list of errors in Mike's post
Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus
using a one-off article that was never peer reviewed, and was never the consensus, to comment on the current consensus
Abusing the definition of "theory"
Referring to the "human factor". What other factor is there?
Defining "Climate Change" as "man-made heat"
Saying, "The government is saying"
I hadn't seen your post before making my above comment.
Thank you, excellent summary
let me add one
abusing the definition of "scientific consensus"
short list of errors in Mike's post
Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus
using a one-off article that was never peer reviewed, and was never the consensus, to comment on the current consensus
Abusing the definition of "theory"
Referring to the "human factor". What other factor is there?
Defining "Climate Change" as "man-made heat"
Saying, "The government is saying"
I hadn't seen your post before making my above comment.
Thank you, excellent summary
let me add one
abusing the definition of "scientific consensus"
Your slipping, or are you just tired? You forgot to add Trump to your posting. Everybody has an off day so don’t worry about it.
Don't have the time to dissect that, but I wonder do you understand what "scientific consensus" actually is?
I ask because it seems you mistake news stories and media hype for "scientific consensus".
I may not be as smart as you, but I know those ain't scientific consensus and I understand the difference between the two!
Do you?
Consensus Building within the IPCC
The word “consensus" is often invoked, and sometimes questioned, when speaking of IPCC reports. In fact, there are two arenas in which a consensus needs to be reached in the production of IPCC assessments; one is the meeting of the entire IPCC, in which unanimity is sought among government representatives. Even though such consensus is not required (countries are free to register their formal dissent), agreement has been reached on all documents and SPMs to date—a particularly impressive fact.
Consensus is also sought among the scientists writing each chapter of the technical reports. Because it would be clearly unrealistic to aim for unanimous agreement on every aspect of the report, the goal is to have all of the working group’s authors agree that each side of the scientific debate has been represented fairly.
CC, you know there was 95% consensus that humans are responsible for “Climate Change". One has to ask, why only 95%? That is because of the IPCC policy to never claim 100%. By claiming 100% they create a feedback problem with the agitators.
Now can you tell me? If “Climate Change" means man-made. Who else but humans are responsible for “Climate Change"?
Unless you are blaming the cow farting. I list cow farts in the natural list.
CC, you know there was 95% consensus that humans are responsible for “Climate Change". One has to ask, why only 95%? That is because of the IPCC policy to never claim 100%. By claiming 100% they create a feedback problem with the agitators.
This is the kind of idiotic thing you say that leads me to ignore you most of the time. They don't just "say" it's 95%, it's that the data shows that it
is 95%. It's not a claim that they made up on the spot, like most of the things you say, it's a demonstrable fact.
short list of errors in Mike's post
Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus
You are saying the use of history is wrong. I disagree.
No, I'm saying an example of something that a consensus of scientists thought was true 300 years ago, but the consensus of scientists today think is not true, is exactly why the scientific method is better than any other method. They didn't vote on it, they didn't follow a guru up a mountain and believe it, a politician didn't make a speech they all bought into based on emotions, they didn't pray and change their answer, they arrived at the consensus by collecting data and evidence and interpreting it. That's why I accept it. I accept it conditionally, knowing that the scientific work continues.
short list of errors in Mike's post
Using a 300 year old example of science to comment on the current consensus
You are saying the use of history is wrong. I disagree.
No, I'm saying an example of something that a consensus of scientists thought was true 300 years ago, but the consensus of scientists today think is not true, is exactly why the scientific method is better than any other method. They didn't vote on it, they didn't follow a guru up a mountain and believe it, a politician didn't make a speech they all bought into based on emotions, they didn't pray and change their answer, they arrived at the consensus by collecting data and evidence and interpreting it. That's why I accept it. I accept it conditionally, knowing that the scientific work continues.
That’s not what I understand happened. The so-called climate scientists were not all real scientists on the subject.
What was the real issue of the survey? It was natural verses man-made. Which was the MAJOR driver of the warming? It was not whether Climate Change existed or not.
All this talk about climate denial is side stepping. Have you ever met a climate denial person? What is happening here is the pot has been stirred so much with so many issues that no one knows to call the soup anymore.
Abstract
Fifty-two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major cause of that warming, according to recent polling (see http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm). However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskes's approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.
//onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full
CC, you know there was 95% consensus that humans are responsible for “Climate Change". One has to ask, why only 95%? That is because of the IPCC policy to never claim 100%. By claiming 100% they create a feedback problem with the agitators.
This is the kind of idiotic thing you say that leads me to ignore you most of the time. They don't just "say" it's 95%, it's that the data shows that it
is 95%. It's not a claim that they made up on the spot, like most of the things you say, it's a demonstrable fact.
You should read the IPCC policy memos. And the memo says, do not ever use 100%. Your reaching here because we are talking about anthropogenic global climate change. Which by its definition is (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity. So, yes it would be 100% man-made. So, yes they do say 99% or 95% and not 100%. The thinking is that when they say 100% it causes to many challenges. It is the policy, and policies are written for a reason. And the reason is not to get bogged down in challenges. To keep the ball rolling.
You should read the IPCC policy memos. And the memo says, do not ever use 100%. Your reaching here because we are talking about anthropogenic global climate change. Which by its definition is (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity. So, yes it would be 100% man-made. So, yes they do say 99% or 95% and not 100%. The thinking is that when they say 100% it causes to many challenges. It is the policy, and policies are written for a reason. And the reason is not to get bogged down in challenges. To keep the ball rolling.