Surprise: Consensus on Climate Change was a Lie

Whack-a-Mole · June 16, 2010, 9:14pm

There’s this take on it:

“So-called ‘global warming’ is just a secret plot by wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!” ~Chip Giller

nilum · June 16, 2010, 9:15pm

Hmm he says “a few dozen” and not 2500… seems like a big difference.

A few dozen scientists does not seem like a consensus. It sounds like it’s just a consensus for those in the IPCC.

GIGObuster · June 16, 2010, 9:17pm

Where does the IPCC claims that the reviewers were the consensus?

And you are just stuck in a particular definition of the consensus that serious researches have not used. The overall consensus on AGW is bigger than the number you are complaining about.

nilum · June 16, 2010, 9:23pm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,96299,00.html

"The IPCC reported that the consensus among scientists is that the earth is warming more rapidly than had previously been thought, and that process is being accelerated by human behaviors such as burning fossil fuels. "
It has been since the beginning.

GIGObuster · June 16, 2010, 9:24pm

And…

What the science says…

An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don’t offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peisner to retract his criticism of Oreskes’ study.

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject “global climate change” published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

You really do not want to know the number of papers that did go against the consensus.

GIGObuster · June 16, 2010, 9:27pm

Thank you for showing that there were no numbers mentioned, the consensus part BTW comes from all the other sources mentioned and the IPCC report is based on that consensus.

Once again, show us where IPCC researchers were pushing the number you mentioned.

Of course, the sad thing is that this controversy that the denier media is pushing here is really silly.

Chronos · June 16, 2010, 9:36pm

Nothing in science is unquestioned or unquestionable. Newtonian mechanics isn’t unquestionable. Evolution isn’t unquestionable. Anthropogenic climate change isn’t unquestionable. What all of those things are is answered. We’ve questioned them so many times, and gotten the same answer each time, that it’s time to start asking some different questions, instead. In the case of climate change, we should now be asking questions like “how bad will it be?” and “what should we do about it?”, since the question “does it exist?” is now so clearly answered.

Kimstu · June 16, 2010, 9:36pm

Oh, I think I see what you’re confused about. Here’s what Hulme and Mahony actually say in their paper:

What they’re saying is that the specific RESULTS about anthropogenic climate change factors are DERIVED FROM the research work of a few dozen specialists in the climate science field known as detection and attribution, and accepted as credible by the other climate scientists referred to. The “disingenuous” part just refers to the fact that such a claim can give a false impression that all 2500 scientists have REPLICATED the same results.

You’re interpreting that to mean that nobody EXCEPT the “few dozen scientists” in question even AGREES with the results. This interpretation, AFAICT, is wrong.

Hulme & Mahony raise some very good questions about what we mean by “scientific consensus”, how to communicate uncertainty, and how to navigate the boundary of science and policy. However, I think you’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick when you claim that their analysis somehow “reveals” the scientific consensus on climate change to be “a lie”.

The fact is that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed research in climate science currently supports the hypothesis that anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing significant changes in global climate, which is what is generally meant by the concept of “scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change”. Nothing in Hulme and Mahony’s paper contradicts or disproves that in any way.

BrainGlutton · June 16, 2010, 9:41pm

Yes, nilum, there is a climate change consensus:

Climate change consensus describes the public debate over whether there is a scientific consensus on global warming, which is the current climate change.

According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points.[2][3][4][5]

Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and most of the non-U.S. media[citation needed] agree with the scientific opinion on climate change, which substantiates human-caused global warming.

However, according to a 2009 World Bank report titled Public attitudes toward climate change: findings from a multi-country poll, there is high unawareness of the achieved consensus.[6] In addition, some deny there is a scientific consensus,[7] dismiss it altogether,[8] and/or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they claim to be ‘unsettled’ science.[9][10][11] Others maintain that US government scientists have been stifled or driven underground.[12]

<snip>

Scientific community

For more details on this topic, see Scientific opinion on climate change.

The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2][3][4][5] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[13] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[14] the American Meteorological Society,[15] the International Union for Quaternary Research,[16] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[17][18] explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.

However, consensus is not unanimous, for example: at least one of the scientists asked to review and comment on the IPCC papers does not agree that humans are responsible for climate change [19][20].

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes claimed that “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.” Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes’ work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed[23] and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,[24] also commenting that “the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”[23][25]

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. “respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”) agree that human activity is “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”[1] A summary from the survey states that:
“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[26] ”

In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion,[27][28][29] to scientific support for the eugenics movement,[30][31] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston[32] and miasma.[33]

List of position statements

Several scientific organizations have issued position statements in which they explicitly used the term “consensus”:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[34]

* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[35]

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[36]

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[37]

* American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[15]

* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[38]

* International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[16]

* Australian Coral Reef Society, 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[39]

Bryan_Ekers · June 16, 2010, 10:41pm

My position is pro-nuclear power and electric cars. I don’t much care about global warming. It’s like not there’s anything nefarious behind it, as with arguments for communism or religion.

magellan01 · June 16, 2010, 11:27pm

+1

GIGObuster · June 16, 2010, 11:32pm

Well, yes, I can see your point, but it has to be mentioned that the ones that are clearly lying here are the climate deniers like Salomon and Mark Morano.

Cat_Whisperer · June 16, 2010, 11:57pm

I think the point about denier media is an excellent one; the media is being irresponsible and ill-informed when they give both sides of the “debate” equal time and respect; the entire scientific community taking an informed stand on one side of the issue does NOT equal a couple of crackpots tilting wildly at windmills.

Topic		Replies	Views
Where does the "97% agree with GW" number come from? Factual Questions	82	16613	March 27, 2012
Aliens cause global warming, says Crichton Great Debates	42	4274	January 6, 2004
Noted Climate Change Skeptic Reverses Stance. Great Debates	82	15556	August 13, 2012
Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility? Great Debates	206	24063	February 23, 2010
More than 90% chance that global warming is due to human activity... Great Debates	158	7226	February 11, 2007

Surprise: Consensus on Climate Change was a Lie

Related topics