However I see that the most pertinent item being skipped is this one:
Do you agree now that climate science has gone from refusing to acknowledge AGW to reaching a consensus that it is real in about a generation, and that that conversion was based on evidence and not just faith?
(Careful with the answer here, I’m using brazil84’s theme that even if evidence is weak it can be used to call a statement true or false)
With what who says?
No. Besides, if I catch them in a lie, then by your reasoning I’m just “nitpicking.”
Would you mind quoting me on that so I understand what your point is?
Here is the list from the Discovery Institute website. (Warning, pdf.) I suspect this is the most up to date one.
You assumed correctly, but even with a consensus you can find some who disagree, perhaps due to religious or political reasons. A consensus does not imply unanimity.
In response to this, I believe there is an alternate list of scientists accepting evolution all with the same first name, which I forget. This list is longer. The point is that even an impressive looking multipage list is trivial compared to the far larger number of people who accept the consensus.
AGW is much newer, and there will be less evidence for it than for evolution, of course, so the consensus can’t be expected to be as strong.
Thank you. I’m still not sure whether there is a consensus with respect to evolution. Of course, ultimately it depends on how you define “consensus.” It does appear that there are a lot of scientists who are skeptical of evolutionary theory. As you suggest, it may be for religious reasons.
If you’re not willing to accept that their is a scientific concensus over evolution then you might as well remove the word from the dictionary.
If I see a long list of skeptics, that raises a question in my mind as to whether there is a consensus.
Anyway, I do accept the theory evolution and my opinion would not change even if the skeptics list was 10 times as long. “Everyone important believes X and therefore you should too” is an argument that doesn’t necessarily carry a lot of weight with me. It carries some weight, but one needs to consider peoples’ motives and agendas.
In the case of evolution, I am well aware that many people have a problem with evolutionary theory because it seems to contradict the Bible. And I’m not going to ignore that fact in evaluating the theory and deciding what weight to put on the skeptics list.
I did specifically say ‘scientific consensus’.
A creationist website published a list of scientists who rejected evolution. In reponse, the NCSE compiled it’s own list of scientists with doctorates who support it. The catch was they had to be called “Steve”. Guess which list is longer?
A few dissenters does not a concensus break.
I’m not making an argument from authority to support evolution, I’m simply refuting that there isn’t a consensus on the subject.
How would you define “consensus” for purposes of science?
You are nitpicking.
No I’m not. I’m not even saying you are wrong that there is a scientific consensus about evolution. But before debating the issue any further, I would prefer that you define your terms. You seem to attach some significance to the phrase “scientific consensus.” You also said “A few dissenters does not a concensus break.”
So obviously you have an idea of what “consensus” means to you.
Try the dictionary.
Suit yourself. The first definition of “consensus” on dictionary.com is “majority of opinion.”
Thus, by your definition, if 55% of climate scientists take the pro-AGW position and 45% are against, then the consensus is that AGW is real.
AmalgamFour, see post 423. (Sometimes I feel I’m chopped liver around here. Brain as big as a planet. … )
If you look at the creationist list more closely, you’ll see the vast majority of deniers do not have degrees in relevant areas. The guy who started the modern creationist movement was a hydrologist, not a biologist - and very religious, of course. Now, if he had actual evidence, no doubt someone with the right background would have picked up the ball, but he didn’t.
A scientific consensus is built of those who are qualified to have an opinion. Second, a consensus, while strictly a majority, is usually meant as a large majority. The President who claims a consensus after winning with 50.1% of the vote is usually laughed at. In science, it is larger still. I doubt anything so up in the air to be 55-45 would even have a poll, and I suspect in that case most respondents would say “I don’t know” which is the right thing to say.
Notice that no one says there is a consensus for evolution among the population as a whole, at least not in our benighted country.
Publications are another measure. Things actively in dispute will get publications on both sides, maybe in different journals though. During the dispute about whether the asteroid was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, those on the negative side had no trouble publishing. For evolution one might think that creationist paper just get rejected, a study done for the Little Rock trial indicated that creationist papers don’t even get submitted to journals. I wonder what the anti-AGW submission rate is.
Whatever happened to the word “probably”? Apparently, if some assertion is not proven 100% absolutely certain, then it’s perfectly reasonable to insist that the opposite is true.
It seems to me that AGW is “probably” or “very likely” to be true. Given that and the risks involved, it would seem prudent for the average person to take it seriously enough to contemplate the need to eventually begin making some sacrifices in that way they consume energy.
But unfortunately, “associated with my political rivals” trumps “probably true”.
The most recent ICC report raised the probability that human activity contributes significantly to the current episode of climate change to 90%, from, IIRC, 75% in the previous one. And that was after the influence of government evaluators from Saudi, among others, toned it down from 95%.
How would you define it? What percentage would count, in your books?
I would need to think about it. But you should understand that I’m not claiming that there definitely is or isn’t a consensus about anything. In my opinion, consensus is not necessarily the most important consideration in evaluating a hypothesis.
Here’s an example: Suppose your friend is approached by an inventor who has built a free electricity perpetual motion type machine and is looking for investors. What arguments would you present to your friend to convince him that he’s being scammed?
You could tell him that the consensus among scientists is that such machines are impossible. But (in my opinion) there are more powerful arguments.
For me, the most powerful argument is the following: If the invention were bona fide, the inventor could just plug his machine into the local power grid and collect a check every month from the electric company. He could use the money to build more machines and pretty soon he would be very rich. Without the need to get investors.
Here’s another example: Suppose that your friend is a doctor in charge of a maternity ward in a central European hospital. He claims that post-delivery fever among women is not caused by an imbalance of body humors, but by some unknown contaminant that is transferred by doctors’ hands from one patient to another. He thinks that all doctors should wash their hands between patients.
How would you show him that he’s wrong? Would you cite the consensus among scientists? Or would you do something else? I know what I would do.
So what you are saying is that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, et al. were wrong when they issued a statement saying:
Of course, these organizations are not infallible but when they collectively issue such a statement, it seems to me that it is up to those who disagree to present compelling evidence of why we should not accept their conclusions. Also, note that “the National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters.” If you propose ignoring their advice on such matters, do you propose this as a general rule…or just when their advice runs counter to what you would like?
The statement you quote doesn’t contain the word “consensus” and does not claim that such a consensus exists with respect to the reality of AGW.
The statement you quote is mainly about what should be done. Which is not what we’ve been debating in this thread (not what I’ve been debating, anyway). I’m happy to discuss it, but it’s a change of subject.
Again, you are raising something that I haven’t debated yet in this thread: What should be done, as opposed to what is.
Well, fine, it doesn’t use the word consensus. However, it does state “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” That seems to imply a certain degree of scientific agreement and certainty. I think whether or not one wants to apply the particular term “consensus” is largely nitpicking terminology.
Actually, the statement is vague on the details of what should be done…as one would expect from a statement issued by scientific organizations. The statement, it seems to me, is mainly directed to making it clear that from a scientific point of view, AGW is sufficiently well-understood that any lack of scientific certainty is no excuse for inaction.
Why would they be strongly advising taking action to reduce greenhouse gases if they did not feel the science of AGW was on firm enough ground to warrant such advice?
[And, by the way, I only quoted part of their full statement which you can read the full text of by clicking on the link that I gave.]