“Scientific consensus” is something of a paradox. A consensus is a philosophical position, if enough people believe in something, then it must be true. Science is a cold-hearted bitch, she demands proof …
… rigid … fucking … proof …
Just wanted to add that.
No no no! It’s what most people believe that counts. That’s the important thing.
Like on Wikipedia.
Sure.
The difference is scientific consensus is largely not base upon belief but…wait for it…evidence.
Perhaps you are hung up on “proof” expecting something like a rigorous, 2+2=4, mathematical proof. You will never get that in most science. That does not mean scientists do not know what is going on. Gravity is described by the theory of gravity. Are you worried gravity does not exist because it is merely a theory?
There are mountains of evidence out there in support of AGW. There is a reason so many science organizations support the notion (see earlier links…pretty nearly all of them).
So, it goes something like this:
“We, the scientific community, are of the opinion that AGW is real based upon a metric crap-ton of evidence. We admit that we may find it is all caused by leprechauns in the future but till evidence for that is brought forward AGW is far and away the best explanation at hand.”
If FXMastermind can produce the leprechauns or any other solution apart from AGW he can expect a Nobel Prize and a $1 million reward and gloating rights forever.
Till then he’s pissing into the wind (and the wind is a hurricane).
Nope. Just general progress and a refinement over time. The more abstract the process being examined, the less rigid the metrics.
It’s actually pretty tough to get the kind of consensus we’re seeing on climate change. The nice thing about science is that it’s a pretty ruthless methodology. And scientists are trained to rip apart poor efforts.
Of course, they’re people too and subject to politics, mores, and individual frailties just like the rest of us.
It’s even tougher to get anyone to define what they mean when they make claims like that.
What do you mean by “consensus on climate change”? That is the essential issue.
When Hansen talks about global warming theory, or anyone else, what exactly does that mean? That the cocksure alarmist doesn’t actually know the answer, it’s absurd.
And yet still, nobody can just define it, much less link to a source that defines what is meant by AGW. What is the theory? What has to be observed to know that AGW is causing the changes?
These questions have been on the table for many months now. If you are sure it’s happening, that there is “mountains of evidence”, then start by linking to the explanation of the CO2 theory.
The definition, the scientific paper that explains how an increase in greenhouse gases will change the climate. Yes, it actually exists.
That you don’t know this, much less can link to it, shows how ignorant the voices of doom actually are.
Come on. It will make me look so stupid, just do it. Show us how smart you are, and how dumb the skeptics must be. Show us the science.
Mathematics is not Science. The Scientific Methods are not all of Science.
Science is the people who do science, and their consensus beliefs. This is why Science is based on peer review.
So, if the Science of GW is wrong, there’d be a mountain of peer-reviewed articles that say so. There aren’t. Science - it works, bitches!
What exactly is meant by “AGW”? Is it simply the claim that mankind’s activities are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures? Or is it something more?
Unless and until you can define “AGW,” the claim that “there are mountains of evidence out there in support of AGW” is meaningless.
Not that you asked me, but that’s not what I would understand by the term.
It isn’t about “likely” or any weaselwords like that, even if the IPCC has to use them. AGW, for me, is this:
Overall global temperatures are increasing, at a historically unprecedented rate, and human activity is the cause.
Uh oh. You’ve done it now, Dibble.
Inb4 brazil’s “Gotcha ya!”
I was a math major what time I did spend in college, so I gravitated towards those sciences that do rely heavily on rigid mathematical proofs … like astronomy, physics, chemistry … and dynamic meteorology. Also note that UCLA requires the completion of two years of calculus before the student is allowed to take their climatology class. Those concurrent with a third year of calculus are allowed to take the dynamic class. Not sure I can agree that UCLA does this to be mean-spirited without some kind of citation, preferably credible. I think it’s completely fair to say that the student of climatology needs to understand calculus because … wait for it … they need to understand the rigid mathematical proofs involved.
Opinions, statistics, consensus, evidence … these are all great tools for pointing the scientific community in the right direction in their research. The goal of this research is leaning how and why average global temperatures fluctuate, and to find the rigidly proven mathematical expression that predicts future fluctuations. Well, as rigid as can be had starting with Navier-Stokes equation.
As an off topic example, scientific consensus was such that a big fucking Schmidt camera was shipped from California to Australia in 1922 to obtain a plate demonstrating Einstein’s special theory of relativity. But that evidence doesn’t prove relativity and QM are consistent with each other, now does it? The matter is still being aggressively researched.
I may regret changing my mind about answering this … but are you for real?
Let me get this straight, because AGW is mentioned in the definition of a different phrase, it automagically applies to all the phrases listed … by implication … in a definition. That’s just lazy … lazy, lazy, lazy.
Oh, I see you took an entire 25 minutes to think through your response and type it in. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
[sigh]
Thank you for your answer. When you talk about “historically unprecedented,” roughly what time frames are you referring to? i.e. roughly what is the time frame over which mankind is causing unprecedentedly rapid temperature increases; and roughly what is the the larger time frame with which you are comparing it?
200 years of rapid temperature increases, vs what I consider “History” which I’d say includes that portion of pre-written history we can reliably reconstruct from artefact as well - say, the last 10 000 years.
Negative, I am a meat popsicle
No. Lazy is taking a single sentence from NOAA out of context. It’s lazy to not read the whole damn cite and only focus on the single sentence you think proves your point.
Not that it does, because of course, one cite doesn’t answer the question posed to you. But then, I guess you’re lazy.
You think I wasted the whole 25 minutes on answering your lazy ass? That’s so cute.
This booklet from the NAS might help:
“Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices”
Prove you exist.
Any of you.
You can’t with 100% confidence. To be clear I believe you exist but that’s just me. You all could be a figment of my imagination.
And so you go with AGW denial except you will not allow it to be real without 100% proof. 99.99999999999% will not be enough because “doubt” remains.
I have essence, therefore I exist.
So, all it takes is to show 0.00000000001% doubt to be labeled a denialist?
If y’all could open the link ralfy provided, I’d like to direct your attention to Figure 8. Notice near the bottom, the figure only shows the sun’s output as a “solar output”, and near the top that ALL carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by man-kind.
These are factually incorrect. Two blatant falsehoods constitute 0.00000000001% doubt
Figure 14 is label “The Ice Age Cycle”, when in fact it is showing the glacial cycle. 100 million years ago, there was no permanent ice anywhere on the Earth. Starting about 30 million years ago, ice was present at the poles all year long. That is the definition of an ice age, when ice remains in place year to year.
That should give me another 0.00000000001% doubt.
Whoever wrote this is good at powerpoint, that’s for sure.
It doesn’t need to be defined any more precisedly than that.
I could point up in the sky and say “that’s a cloud” and you could ask that I define what I mean.
Why is it that the vast majority of scientists get it and you don’t? Even if you don’t agree, you should be able to come to a conclusion about what they are agreeing on.
precisedly? In science precise definitions are the norm. Defining precisely what is meant is actually essential to science. If it’s some vague, undefinable “something”, it’s pseudoscience at best.
When James Hansen states *“the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming” or “The predicted CO2 warming” *or *“**Nominal confidence in the CO2 theory” * , he isn’t being evasive, vague or imprecise.
When somebody is asked directly what they mean by “global warming”, and they evade, or worse, it makes them look like a foolish person. Or worse. It’s exactly why I hammered poor GIGO until he gave up, a real blessing we enjoy in this topic. (GIGO should note that I used skepticalscience as the source of the Hansen quotes)
What is Hansen talking about when he uses those words? What does he mean by “the CO2 theory”? If you don’t know, then what the fuck are you doing in regards to a discussion about global warming? Why do ignorant people post endlessly about something they actually don’t know shit about?
A question with no answer of course.
The overwhelming scientific consensus concerning Newton’s Law of Gravity in the 19th century was … wrong.