I agree. Even if you go against a popular theory for which the evidence is pretty shoddy, you can expect a negative reception. It’s just human nature.
The majority of a million experts disagree with you that the evidence is shoddy.
You’re fully allowed to disagree with them, but saying that evidence is poor like it’s a fact is like saying that Shakespeare couldn’t put two words together and expecting people to agree with you.
It’s up to a million now, hey? Anyway, I address the “consensus” argument on my blog under the heading of “Authority”
Many people will point to the fact that, for instance, Einstein’s theory of relativity was raked over the coals by the scientific establishment of the day. What people don’t realize is that the scientific community of the day was right to rake relativity over the coals. The reason that relativity is considered so solid today is that it was subjected to the harshest scrutiny anyone could devise, and it survived it. This is how science works.
Likewise, those seeking to disprove a well-established theory like anthropogenic climate change should not only expect their work to come under attack, they should welcome it, since that’s how they would prove their point, if it’s true.
I agree. And that’s part of the reason why it’s naive to think that researchers have an incentive to go against CAGW without ironclad evidence.
Sure they have an incentive. There are always some scientists here and there offering various alternatives—some more crackpotty than others—to mainstream scientific theories. Although the vast majority of such alternatives don’t stand up to scrutiny in the long run, there’s always some kind of incentive to offer them.
Sometimes the scientist in question just has a lot of faith in his/her own assumptions and isn’t too bothered by the lack of supporting data. Sometimes they are more interested in temporary notoriety, or funding from an industry source that approves their conclusions, than they are in long-term scientific validation. Sometimes they simply don’t know what they’re talking about, because they’re working in a field that’s not their specialty and have missed a few key points.
In any case, if the anthropogenic-climate-change deniers actually had any ironclad evidence in support of their position, I think they’d have produced it by now.
Why not address it here? That’s not the first time you’ve cited your own blog. I guess if you have no PR literature to cite, you take what you can get…
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm 24,300 Atmospheric scientists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos050.htm 230,000 Environmental scientists and hydrologists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos288.htm 194,000 Geoscientists
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm 30,000 Astronomers and physicists
So according to the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics, there’s ~500,000 climate scientists in the US. Do you have any particular reason to think that there wouldn’t be an equal number at least in the EU to match that, let alone the entire world?
As to your blog, which part of “Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases” isn’t quite specific? If you can read that somehow as not endorsing anthropogenic global warming, then I wouldn’t hesitate to believe that you could read “milk is white” as secretly saying that milk is pink–in which case I can’t proclaim to have much worry about the contents of your blog.
Lol. Actually I was asking about the number of scientists who (according to you) believe that the evidence for CAGW was strong. Since you said “majority,” I suppose I should have said “It’s up to 500,000+ now?”
Anyway, I am seriously skeptical that 500,000 scientisists believe that the evidence for CAGW is strong.
Please give me a cite.
A lot of things. For one thing, your quote says NOTHING about warming. Nor does it specifically mention CO2. The CAGW hypothesis is a specific, narrow claim. It would be easy enough to endorse that hypothesis in explicit terms, rather than vague statements about “environmental change” or “urgency.”
Rather than come right out and claim that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming which took place before the turn of the century, whoever drafted that quote merely insinuated it by juxtaposing a sentence about human activities and environmental change with a sentence about greenhouse gases.
Again, it should be easy enough to come right out and say it.
A) “Scientists” and “Climate Scientists” are not interchangeable terms.
B) If there are a million climate scientists worldwide and a majority of them believe that anthropogenic global warming is accurate, then yes, that would be more than 500,000.
So to link to the Wikipedia page which you referred to in your blog and yet seemed loathe to actually provide a link to:
Out of 35 climate science groups–and again, if one does not read that white is pink–35 agree that the current prime cause of global warming is anthropogenic. Of surveys of climate scientists, the majority–especially as time moves forward–believe that there are anthropogenic causes and that the IPCC report was an accurate review of the current state of the science.
So unless you have some different definition of majority than I do, more than 50% of the ~1,000,000 climate scientist in the world feel that the science is clear enough to put forth their support for the theory. And by my math 50% of 1,000,000 is 500,000.
Woopdeedoo. They used a thesaurus and thus are out of the running? That seems rather strict of you.
Fine, please provide a cite that 500,000 climate scientists believe that evidence is strong for CAGW.
Those statements do not necessarily reflect a claim that the evidence for CAGW is strong. Moreoever, even if they did, there is no evidence that they reflect the views of all members of the associations. I explain this in my blog.
They left themselves plenty of wiggle room. Sorry, but “climate change” does NOT mean the same thing as “warming.”
It’s one thing to say “the milk is white.” It’s another thing to say “There is a potable liquid which is not black. It’s important for children to drink nutritous beverages.”
How do you think you find out if the evidence is ironclad?
You really don’t understand scientists. We love going against the majority. That’s why we do what we do, to have an opportunity to challenge the mainstream theories. I’ve challenged mainstream theories a time or two myself (and got shot down very quickly both times). Any scientist who thought they had evidence against a theory as big as anthropogenic climate change would get their ideas out there so fast it’d make your head spin, despite the possibility or even probability that they’ll get shot down.
No need to apologize. “Climate change” is a much more accurate term than “warming.”
Climate change encompasses not only temperature, but patterns of precipitation and humidity, atmospheric circulation, and other issues. It better represents the current projections of uneven temperature changes - much greater temperature increases are expected at the poles than in the mid-latitudes, for example, and some models even project reduced temperatures for some parts of the the globe. “Climate change” covers both the drier summers and wetter winters expected in some locations and the drier winters and wetter summers projected in others. “Global warming” is an imprecise and (arguably) inaccurate term; the evolving science recognized and addressed that fact.
The researchers who actually create these global models aren’t shy about discussing their projections. Whatever buzzword you want to assign to it, the projections remain the same. Your semantic nitpicking is entirely PR, and has nothing to do with the science of climatology.
:dubious:
This another case of milk is pink? My post did not say anything that you wanted to admit and so any possibly way to wriggle out is fine?
If it’s not, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll know in advance.
Scientists are people and I understand people.
A) This article only says what you think it does if you only read up to the first paragraph. Once the scientists get their say instead of the bubblehead reporter’s personal slant, the point of the article is, “Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming. […] Unfortunately, we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period,” Trenberth says.
It’s also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it’s possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don’t know about. It’s an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.
“I suspect that we’ll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis,” Trenberth says. “But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board.”
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat."
B) In almost all cases, no single item of evidence proves or disproves anything in science. Changed names in Anne Frank’s diary does not prove that her diary was made from whole cloth. There’s always going to be minute things that conflict that open the pathway to other possibilities. Their existence isn’t a proof against anything though.
I’m not so sure about that. “climate change” includes outcomes which are inconsistent with the CAGW hypothesis. For example, if global temperatures drop substantially over the next 50 years, falling way behind the IPCC predictions, the climate will have changed while at the same time, the CAGW hypothesis will have been falsified.
Similarly, let’s suppose the IPCC predicts the northern hemisphere gets wetter and the southern hemisphere gets drier. In that case, the IPCC is predicting “climate change.” Now suppose the opposite happens – the northern hemisphere gets drier and the southern hemisphere gets wetter. Well, there was still “climate change,” but was the prediction correct? Of course not.
Basically, the phrase “climate change” is uncomfortably vague and slippery.
Sure, “climate change” covers everything. That’s the problem.
Sure, which is why I use the term “CAGW” to accurately express the hypothesis which is being advanced.
If the CAGW hypothesis is correct, a strong case can be made for curtailing CO2 emissions. If the CAGW hypothesis is incorrect, the same case cannot be made.
Again, it would be very easy for these organizations to specifically and explicitly endorse CAGW. And yet they do not do so.
No, the PR is the vague and weasely language chosen by people who want to seem like they are endorsing CAGW without actually doing so.
Umm, your post did not support the claim you made. There were 2 fatal flaws which were explained to you.
And in your opinion, what do I think the article says?
Absolutely. I couldn’t have said it better.