I keep hearing people put down the notion of trusting the “consensus view”.
And they do it with such self-certain distain, they imply it’s so cheap to simply accept expert opinion, like some sort of intellectual cop out.
Anyone out there willing to give a shot at explaining why we should trust experts?
Heck any one (JS?) want to explain why they think they shouldn’t trust experts and their collective learned opinion?
and how about that consensus . . .
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 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.
Anderegg 2010
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
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
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Search James Lovelock. He is one of the previously important voices for human caused climate change, and seems to have shifted his view. If I recall correctly: The sun may be heating up, contributing to global warming, or causing it outright, and it may no longer be possible to have confidence in the position that it is fully or even partially human caused.
I think a shift to focusing on human caused environmental destruction, which is in large part independent of rising global temperatures, makes the environment still a unarguably essential issue, and an issue for which global warming skepticism is irrelevant and can’t be used against.
There’s far more to the problem than just temperature change and a greenhouse effect, that’s just icing on the cake.
Search James Lovelock. He is one of the previously important voices for human caused climate change, and seems to have shifted his view. If I recall correctly: The sun may be heating up, contributing to global warming, or causing it outright, and it may no longer be possible to have confidence in the position that it is fully or even partially human caused.
The Sun is not causing global warming. At this point only deliberately ignorant people swallow this lie. As for Lovelock, would you stop believing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution if I pointed out one PhD Biologist who is a Young Earth Creationist? Ninety-seven precent of working climatologists believe mankind's carbon emissions are driving global warming. If it were the Sun the first decade of this century would have been cooler than the last decade of the 20th Century, but it was the warmest decade on record despite the Sun being in a quiet phase.
It seems to me that even if it IS a natural climate shift, if dumping all these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere even contributes to it (and there’s no doubt about that), shouldn’t we be doing something to correct it?
Search James Lovelock. He is one of the previously important voices for human caused climate change, and seems to have shifted his view. If I recall correctly: The sun may be heating up, contributing to global warming, or causing it outright, and it may no longer be possible to have confidence in the position that it is fully or even partially human caused.
The Sun is not causing global warming. At this point only deliberately ignorant people who swallow this lie. As for Lovelock, would you stop believing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution if I pointed out one PhD Biologist who is a Young Earth Creationist? Ninety-seven precent of working climatologists believe mankind's carbon emissions are driving global warming. If it were the Sun the first decade of this century would have been cooler than the last decade of the 20th Century, but it was the warmest decade on record despite the Sun being in a quiet phase.
Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.
But alas I've only heard these ideas secondhand, hence my recommendation to those interested to google Lovelock.
If what you say about the sun and earth temperatures is true, that would certainly seem contrary to what I am saying and the sun hypothesis in particular would be wrong. I am ignorant of the actual data and its interpretation though.
Search James Lovelock. He is one of the previously important voices for human caused climate change, and seems to have shifted his view. If I recall correctly: The sun may be heating up, contributing to global warming, or causing it outright, and it may no longer be possible to have confidence in the position that it is fully or even partially human caused.
The Sun is not causing global warming. At this point only deliberately ignorant people who swallow this lie. As for Lovelock, would you stop believing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution if I pointed out one PhD Biologist who is a Young Earth Creationist? Ninety-seven precent of working climatologists believe mankind's carbon emissions are driving global warming. If it were the Sun the first decade of this century would have been cooler than the last decade of the 20th Century, but it was the warmest decade on record despite the Sun being in a quiet phase.
Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.
But alas I've only heard these ideas secondhand, hence my recommendation to those interested to google Lovelock.
If what you say about the sun and earth temperatures is true, that would certainly seem contrary to what I am saying and the sun hypothesis in particular would be wrong. I am ignorant of the actual data and its interpretation though.
There are more than 7 billion humans on earth and every one of them is burning something in a closed atmosphere. How could that possibly NOT have a volatile impact on the state of that closed system?
Lois
Search James Lovelock. He is one of the previously important voices for human caused climate change, and seems to have shifted his view. If I recall correctly: The sun may be heating up, contributing to global warming, or causing it outright, and it may no longer be possible to have confidence in the position that it is fully or even partially human caused.
I think a shift to focusing on human caused environmental destruction, which is in large part independent of rising global temperatures, makes the environment still a unarguably essential issue, and an issue for which global warming skepticism is irrelevant and can't be used against.
There's far more to the problem than just temperature change and a greenhouse effect, that's just icing on the cake.
So, what is it about this one guy that makes you want to tell us to google him, and not any of the groups listed above? Is he that convincing?
Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.
Do you have any citations for that? I've been studying climate change for 10 years and have not seen this phenomenon you describe, at least not in the peer-reviewed literature. The energy company funded denial machines promote this and other lies to confuse people and sow doubt. Ninety seven percent of climatologists doing research believe mankind's carbon emissions are driving the rate of climate change, and that percentage has not changed recently.
But alas I've only heard these ideas secondhand, hence my recommendation to those interested to google Lovelock.
That's what I suspected. I recommend you read some of the sites dedicated to discussing the science behind global warming instead of basing your decisions on propaganda. Here are a couple of good places to start.
http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.climatecentral.org
If what you say about the sun and earth temperatures is true, that would certainly seem contrary to what I am saying and the sun hypothesis in particular would be wrong. I am ignorant of the actual data and its interpretation though.
In addition to studying climate change for 10 years one of my hobbies is astronomy. Solar observing was quite boring during the first decade of this century. Keep in mind when reading the denialist propaganda that they cherry pick 1998, a statistical outlier, as the baseline for warming. Despite 2001-2010 being the warmest decade on record the deniers still spread the lie that global warming has slowed or even stopped. 2015 was the hottest year on record, breaking the record set in 2014, and January 2016 was by far the hottest January on record. My 30 year old son has never lived in a month which had lower than average worldwide temps. Let that sink in. More than 360 consecutive months of above average temperatures.
Mankind is dumping billions of tons of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. Some people argue the Earth system is too big for us to have an appreciable effect, but imagine a large scale, say 10 miles long, with 100,000 tons of weight at each end (this is a though experiment, run with me here). Place a one ounce weight at one end each month. How long do you think it will take for the system to lose balance and start to tip? With time, our imaginary scale will reach a tipping point where it it is clearly unbalanced, and in time it will pass the point of no return where the entire system is crashing and nothing you do can reverse the change. That's what we've been doing since the Industrial Revolution.
Well the point isn't about a single dissenter, it was about the idea that there could be other causes and that some scientists such as him are realizing that previous certainty in the proportion of global warming due to humans may be unfounded, i.e. we can't be as certain as we'd like to think we are, and that the alarmism was at least somewhat overblown.
The problem, where ever you found that in, I'll bet they were trying to make it sound like climatologists haven't thoroughly investigated every imaginable physical phenomena that can influence our climate system. Thing is they certainly have and the information they have collected is available.
You can learn about the history here https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
The most important thing to understand is that "It's The Atmospheric Insulation!"
The physics of all greenhouse gases are thoroughly understand - I can say that with certainty because of all the functioning modern marvels that would be impossible without such a thorough understanding. Here you can take a look at the list.\:
Senator Inhofe your "Global Warming Hoax" is a hoax !
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/inhofe-global-warming-hoax-is-hoax.html
Also that understanding was established by the air forces of various countries working independently on weapons and national "defense" program. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html
All nations came up with the same information - and of course you can find a few hundred political motivated scientist who'll claim anything, evolution didn't happen, Earth is flat, greenhouse gases aren't greenhouse gases. But take a little time looking at their
"facts" and arguments (as I have) you will find convoluted lies and vital information missing, and lots and lots of personal slander against scientists.
Ask yourself, who build your argument around personal attacks, if your supposed have the science on our side?
Just the other day I found a new YouTube channel, who been pumping out some very informative video to help you get up to speed on what serious scientists, as opposed to political operative have to say.
BUT THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzdd2tKqh4GLOBAL WARMING: ITS THE SUN, STUPID!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGONXHNx3Q
(he's got a bunch more, good stuff.)
Lovelock is an interesting guy, with some interesting ideas.
He is not, and has never been a climate scientist.
He deserves to be listened to, but not to be taken as gospel.
He doesn’t deserve to considered smarter or more informed than real practicing climate scientists.
Every time I try to pull the experts card I get the whole experience argument. They based on their experience it isn’t true, their experience says different. Why trust the opinions of others instead of finding the truth on your own
Every time I try to pull the experts card I get the whole experience argument. They based on their experience it isn't true, their experience says different. Why trust the opinions of others instead of finding the truth on your own
I think that what you propose is correct to a degree. But the reality is that each of us does not have the wherewithal, time, interest etc. to ourselves perform the research necessary to acutely understand every important issue. So in order to "find the truth" we are often going to be reduced to simply doing our best to sort thru the consensus of "experts" and any reasonable authoritative counters to such consensus.
Every time I try to pull the experts card I get the whole experience argument. They based on their experience it isn't true, their experience says different. Why trust the opinions of others instead of finding the truth on your own
I think that what you propose is correct to a degree. But the reality is that each of us does not have the wherewithal, time, interest etc. to ourselves perform the research necessary to acutely understand every important issue. So in order to "find the truth" we are often going to be reduced to simply doing our best to sort thru the consensus of "experts" and any reasonable authoritative counters to such consensus.No one is asking you to trust opinion.
The scientific consensus is not a thing of opinion, it's a collection of knowledge.
Take anyone of the contrarian arguments and look at them closely, they don't deliver…
Don't take my word for it.
These people have collected all those myths and provided the information you need to learn about to put the pieces together for yourself
Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
I keep hearing people put down the notion of trusting the "consensus view".
And they do it with such self-certain distain, they imply it's so cheap to simply accept expert opinion, like some sort of intellectual cop out.
Anyone out there willing to give a shot at explaining why we should trust experts?
Heck any one (JS?) want to explain why they think they shouldn't trust experts and their collective learned opinion?
and how about that consensus . . .
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":
I put some of the blame for this on a book by Thomas Kuhn called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While its description has some validity for the softer sciences, I think it is a total mischaracterization when it comes to the harder sciences like physics. In physics, one of the first tests you make of a new theory is whether it agrees with the older theories under the applicable conditions. So a revolution is not a correct description of what is happening. It is a basic fact of science that finding new evidence does change all the evidence already accumulated. Thus it may bring modifications but it cannot overthrow everything. Why do you think we continue to teach the physics of Isaac Newton in the introductory science classes? It is because this physics wasn't overthrown by relativity and quantum theory at all.
I put some of the blame for this on a book by Thomas Kuhn called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While its description has some validity for the softer sciences, I think it is a total mischaracterization when it comes to the harder sciences like physics. In physics, one of the first tests you make of a new theory is whether it agrees with the older theories under the applicable conditions. So a revolution is not a correct description of what is happening. It is a basic fact of science that finding new evidence does change all the evidence already accumulated. Thus it may bring modifications but it cannot overthrow everything. Why do you think we continue to teach the physics of Isaac Newton in the introductory science classes? It is because this physics wasn't overthrown by relativity and quantum theory at all.
(you forgot to close-quotes) Interesting, I've heard of the book, but haven't read it. Probably wouldn't hurt me to try.
Although I think regarding the Anthropogenic Global Warming PR wars - it's a matter of ruthless people without a shred of honesty, scruples, sense of fair play, etc., etc. bulldozing the dialogue with pure bull shit and being so creative and forceful and loud about it, that it's effected how the science is done and communicated. The supposed "global warming hiatus" meme being one of the grosses examples. Funny just yesterday I wrote a post about it
SEEPAGE being the key concept:
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/2-study-miscommunication-naturecom.html
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Another study in miscommunication - Nature.com reporting on Karl et al. 2015
I want to make clear that I have a good deal of respect for Jeff Tollefson, on account of how often my searches lead to one of his articles, which are consistently clear and helpful. I even think this article is fundamentally sound and helpful.
However, there's one word that's an stellar example of "seepage" whereby scientists and science communicators unconsciously adopt the contrarian meme, rather than getting back to fundamentals and explaining what's happening to our global heat and moisture distribution engine.
Seepage, impacts of a chimera - Lewandowsky, Risbey, Oreskes study
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/09/seepage-impacts-of-chimera-lewandowsky.html
The paragraph had potential for an insightful learning moment, instead it plays right into the Republican campaign of confusion. ...
Here's another one looking at the Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Means Global Warming is a Hoax, hoax
A study in miscommunication - increasing Antarctic ice extent no mystery!
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/miscommunication-increasing-antarctic.html
guess I shouldn’t leave it at that teaser, here’s the “infraction” (Oh and I can go on and on about the stupidity of communication - constantly using “global warming”
when they are referring to 80some% of the land surface, and none of the ocean’s mass. The kindergarden gullibility… atrocious.
Also the fact there was never any decline, a leveling off increase, but no decline.)
_______________________
US agency’s updated temperature records suggest that global warming continues apace
Jeff Tollefson - June 2015 - Nature.com
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"An apparent pause in global warming (2) might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science1.
That finding, which contradicts (1) the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium. ...
__________________________
(1) Contradicts what?
Karl had more information at hand then IPCC did. It's about better information leading to better understanding and more accurate numbers.
Isaac Asimov considers The Relativity of Wrong
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/isaac-asimov-relativity-of-wrong.html
{for this to make sense you need to see the previous post}
Between us folks, it’ll be interesting see the response these next couple days.
I sent Jeff an email and hope the post don’t piss him off.
I think I have a way of pissing off my friends nearly as much and the folks I give a hard time to.
People don’t cotton to critique much, particularly not from a freakster off in the hinterland.
It’s one thing to go after the bad guys, but now at 60 somethings changed, I feel a bit freer to write my mind.
It’s not mean spirited, just a dose of tough love, it hurts, I know quite well and I’ve been at the short end plenty,
it’s part of the spice of life, it’s one of the ways we learn and improve.
The dignity and constructive way (or lack thereof) in which one navigates those “rapids” as they come along and pass on by
determine who we become.
Self-skepticism and a sense of fellowship with humanity, not taking oneself too seriously, and all that.
guess I shouldn't leave it at that teaser, here's the "infraction"
(Oh and I can go on and on about the stupidity of communication - constantly using "global warming"
when they are referring to 80some% of the land surface, and none of the ocean's mass. The kindergarden gullibility… atrocious.
Also the fact there was never any decline, a leveling off increase, but no decline.)
_______________________
US agency’s updated temperature records suggest that global warming continues apace
Jeff Tollefson - June 2015 - Nature.com
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700
"An apparent pause in global warming (2) might have been a temporary mirage, according to recent analysis. Global average temperatures have continued to rise throughout the first part of the twenty-first century, researchers report on 5 June in Science1.
That finding, which contradicts (1) the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium. ...
__________________________
(1) Contradicts what?
Karl had more information at hand then IPCC did. It's about better information leading to better understanding and more accurate numbers.
Isaac Asimov considers The Relativity of Wrong
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/07/isaac-asimov-relativity-of-wrong.html
I keep hearing people put down the notion of trusting the "consensus view".
And they do it with such self-certain distain, they imply it's so cheap to simply accept expert opinion, like some sort of intellectual cop out.
Anyone out there willing to give a shot at explaining why we should trust experts?
Heck any one (JS?) want to explain why they think they shouldn't trust experts and their collective learned opinion?
and how about that consensus . . .
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
........
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Where is your science? On websites named “skepticalscience"? Sounds like a real winner. I don’t see the point here. You got 97% of the scientists saying that consensus is that man is having an effect on the climate. What more do you need? Are you trying for 98% or 100%? Hell, there are people who still believe man has not been to the moon yet. You are never going to get 100% of anything concerning the human factor.
The point you are trying to make was made and accepted years ago. All I see happening most of the time is that some congressman who has access to congressional reports that are unavailable to the public. These reports are costing the taxpayers a lot of money. The congressman tries to make points from these reports that the general public is mostly unaware of and creates a communication problem. Gets labeled a denier and the thought the congressman was trying to make never gets fully understood.
The real facts are that the science of how much man-made warming is taking place is not solid. Until a baseline of the nature’s heat of the earth is available there is no legally accepted baseline. And if we are going to be a nation of laws, then we need this information. The computer models are working on this problem right now.
As far as the experts, every court case has experts on both sides of the case. I guess you have to pick the experts you believe the most. Myself, I am backing and supporting the IPCC. Always have, and so far I like the path they are taking.