#54481 Global Warming

[vorpal blade]

Let me be clear: I'm simply trying to prove my original point that scientists overwhelmingly believe in global warming. I have not been satisfied in my request to "point me to a single national or international scientific organization or academy that rejects the opinion of of anthropogenic global warming." I acknowledge that there is some dissent and much debate in the scientific community. However, I still firmly believe that, call it consensus or not, the vast majority of scientists believe in global warming.

Sorry, I still see the AGI position statement, signed by the presidents of 16 member societies, as a rejection of the opinion that global warming is definitely anthropogenic. The additional quote you give does nothing to change that. I believe I have satisfactorily answered your question or challenge.

I'm not sure why you think position statements of 80 or so scientific organizations represents overwhelming consensus. As I've tried to show, even this minority of scientific organizations represents the opinion of the leaders, not the rank and file. In the polls of scientific opinion that I trust I find that the informed opinion largely rejects anthropogenic global warming. See, for example the poll in Photonics Spectra, October, 2001.

Actually, I think an optical scientist is better qualified to give an opinion on climate science then many "climate scientists." But please, don't take my word for it. I think it is unscientific to argue that one should look at the so called experts, rather than look at the facts themselves. Science ought not to be pushed by "authority figures."

Perhaps I'll respond to some of your other statements later. Right now I thought I would submit this thought:

There is a flaw in our system in regard to the peer-reviewed journals. Most, if not all, of the prestigious journals are peer-reviewed. In a peer-reviewed journal when you submit an article for publication the editor checks his list of subject matter experts and sends the article to an expert for review. This list is often short; for global warming he might have only a handful of experts. Those experts might also be the experts for many other prestigious journals. So a given expert might have considerable power in his field.

The purpose of the peer-reviewed system is to protect the journal from low quality articles. An expert can identify flaws in the research, or flaws in the conclusions reached. In order to protect the journal from publishing such embarrassments the reviewers look for mistakes. If the article comes to a conclusion that is “obviously wrong” in the eyes of the reviewer then the reviewer will look particularly closely, and manage to find something wrong with the article. It may be just that the article references the reviewer's own published work, but does so in an unfavorable light. In such cases it is easy to believe that the article is flawed, and the reviewer searches diligently to find the flaws. Sometimes the reviewer is satisfied in just changing the conclusion. If the article is written by a well respected leader in the field, who generally concurs with the accepted dogma, the article is less closely scrutinized. The reviewer then returns the article to the editor with the “problems” he saw, and perhaps with some suggested verbiage to correct the problem. The editor returns the article to the prospective author, with the suggestions of the anonymous reviewer. The author can then resubmit the article with the suggested changes, or ask for another reviewer.

How does one become one of the selected reviewers, or “peers.” I've been a reviewer, and it appears to me that I became one because I had recently published a number of articles in a particular field. My articles were not obviously kooky or out in left field. The editors look for someone safe to review their articles. A prestigious person, well established in the field, is often sought after.

The problem arises when all those who get published in a hot topic are of a similar belief about that subject. The reviewers then have among themselves similar opinions about that subject, and with or without intending it they act to prevent others with an “obviously wrong” opinion from getting published. So the outsiders don't become reviewers, and the entrenched opinion becomes perpetuated. It doesn't have to be an overt conspiracy, just human nature if the topic is really important to your career or core beliefs.

Unless you are in a really safe position in the academic world the rule is “publish or perish.” You have to get your articles published or you lose your prestige and your job. There is intense pressure to do whatever it takes to please the reviewers. You sometimes see articles where the conclusions are not supported by the accompanying facts in the article. Those who persist in their dissenting views are weeded out of the system. Those in the system are rewarded for not rocking the boat.

[vorpal blade]

And the invitation to "point me to a single national or international scientific organization or academy that rejects the opinion of of anthropogenic global warming" is still open.

P.S. The AGI position is considered neutral because it contrasts both with the consensus position and the dissent position.

What dissent position?

I've thought for some time that your question of a scientific organization that rejects the anthropogenic theory of global warming is the wrong question, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, when some of the science is known to be fraudulent, deliberate attempts have been successful in misleading scientists, and there is reason to suspect the motives and agenda of the global warming alarmists, you can't just rely on a “consensus” of opinion. I know you don't feel qualified to make an independent assessment, but it looks like we are forced into this.

The second reason is that you seem to be demanding the identification of a scientific organization of a particular type – includes scientists with a wide variety of opinions, and is for the general advancement of science – which holds the probably untrue, biased, unscientific, agenda driven "dissent" point of view that the science says that global climate change is absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, not at all caused by man in the most modest amount. That's fine as a personal opinion, but why should any self-respecting scientific organization hold such an absolute point of view as an official statement of the state of the science? You ask way too much. The absence of such an unscientific scientific organization of the "right" type does not prove that scientists overwhelming believe in an anthropogenic theory of climate change. What you ask is unreasonable and illogical. No offense meant.

Also, optical science deals with the propagation of electromagnetic energy (including light and heat) through all kinds of media, including the atmosphere, and with the interaction of that energy with matter. I believe that is the heart of the science in global warming. Furthermore, much of the instrumentation used to measure global temperatures and atmospheric constituents is based on the propagation of light and the interaction with sensors. Remote sensing is inherently an optical science study. I believe optical scientists are well positioned to comment on possible global temperature changes and it's causes.

[NerdGirl]

I'm not sure what I believe about global warming, but as a scientist I realize that the issue is much more complex and the data is much less clear than the media (on either side) would have us believe. I tend to think that climate change is happening, but that the cause is not anthropomorphic, but that's not a strong opinion because I've on superficially looked at the evidence, such as it is. I do think that we should try to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, partly because of effects on air quality but mostly for political reasons. I actually don't think that cutting our emissions will affect climate change too much, though. Assuming that climate change is real, I don't think it's reversible or stoppable. Cutting our emissions and making our cities less polluted is still a worthy cause, but I have my doubts that it will do anything other than make our air easier to breathe. Not to mention how much money people would save if public transportation were improved or how much healthier people would be if they walked to nearby destinations instead of driving. I fully support responsible stewardship of the environment for religious reasons, but I think that many of the so-called "green" things that we do these days are mostly for show. I'm getting way off topic now, but I found this article interesting (someone posted it on facebook):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/ ... otogallery

[vorpal blade]

I agree with you NerdGirl. Also, thanks for the link to an interesting discussion of "going green."

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Sorry, I still see the AGI position statement, signed by the presidents of 16 member societies, as a rejection of the opinion that global warming is definitely anthropogenic. The additional quote you give does nothing to change that. I believe I have satisfactorily answered your question or challenge.

I still disagree. The AGI statement is a big fat maybe. I'd expect a rejection to look more like this statement from 1999 by the AAGP.

Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects.

That statement (as you've read) was replaced in 2007 by this one:

In the last century growth in human populations has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.

Another big fat maybe.

I'm not sure why you think position statements of 80 or so scientific organizations represents overwhelming consensus. As I've tried to show, even this minority of scientific organizations represents the opinion of the leaders, not the rank and file. In the polls of scientific opinion that I trust I find that the informed opinion largely rejects anthropogenic global warming. See, for example the poll in Photonics Spectra, October, 2001.

Actually, I think an optical scientist is better qualified to give an opinion on climate science then many "climate scientists." But please, don't take my word for it. I think it is unscientific to argue that one should look at the so called experts, rather than look at the facts themselves. Science ought not to be pushed by "authority figures."

I agree that optical scientists can make valuable contributions to climate science, but an optical scientist would need to have a more holistic background in studying areas related to climate before I would regard their narrative of climate change to be authoritative. I couldn't find the poll you referenced, but I would like to see a wider poll that supports your viewpoint.

I simply don't believe it's possible to separate the the study of science from issues of authority figures and the structure of the scientific profession. In doing science, you have to build off of others' studies, and in doing so, there is necessarily a huge bestowal of trust on certain scientists. The only way to avoid "authority figures" is to do all the research yourself with tools you make yourself.

Regarding peer reviewed journals:
It seems this is just another angle at your attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the scientific profession as a source of factual knowledge. So, you ARE saying that scientific consensus is not meaningful. Right? Okay. That's a genuinely interesting position to take. If you can defend this position, it means it doesn't really MATTER how many scientists say what (and hopefully you can do so in a way that doesn't undermine your own scientific niche). I've been thinking a lot about how New Historicism could apply to science, and I think global warming is a particularly prime example. Maybe if we could agree on this point (I'm not quite sure yet), we could at least have a basis for our vastly different interpretations of global warming.

Or are they that vastly different?
I believe the temperature is rising higher than it has in at least the last 2,000 years (including the MWP) and that human activity likely contributes. Do you believe a) the current evidence doesn't prove this (i.e. the jury is out, and it's too soon to decide) or b) the current evidence shows this to be false (science shows that temperature is definitely/likely not as warm as past epochs and not likely to surpass those levels, and that human activity is unlikely/definitely not a factor in warming? (You can separate the two postulates if you like)

I consider A to be a neutral statement and B to be dissent. You apparently consider both to be dissent, but I'm interested in which position you see as closest to your own. If you respond to any of what I have written, could you reply to this question and the above point about whether you think scientific consensus matters?

Anyway... more to respond to, but I better get back to work. I look forward to your thoughts.

[vorpal blade]

The theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is just that, a theory. All science can do is tell us that maybe the theory is true, and maybe the theory is false. Scientists are free to make hypotheses regarding this theory. They can make the hypothesis, essentially a guess, that the theory is likely mostly true. Or the scientists can make some other guess, such as that the theory is likely mostly untrue. As the hypotheses are tested against empirical facts some hypotheses gain support, while others lose support. There is too much that we don’t know, and too few reliable facts at this time to close the door on research and declare that one or the other hypothesis is the correct one. Actually, true scientists never absolutely close the door; there is always the chance that the prevailing theory needs to be modified, as new data may show.

True scientists never talk about a “consensus” in a favorable way. That is the talk of politicians or someone who is more interested in getting his point of view accepted than he is interested in the truth. The one who talks about consensus is afraid that you might find out he is wrong, and he doesn’t want you to explore other possibilities. The goal of science is not consensus. Science is a process to guide us in the discovery of truth. In true science every theory is continually challenged. Every experiment is duplicated in various laboratories around the world. The goal is to find out what might be wrong with someone else’s theory, and to propose new theories if you can find fault with another’s theory. Scientists are skeptics. When a scientist writes a position statement regarding his science he tries to present the generally prevailing theory, and some of the opposing theories, being careful to try to keep his own bias and opinions out of the discussion. But scientists, being human, are sometimes blind to their own assumptions and prejudices, or unaware of the dishonesty of some scientists.

What we sometimes see in science are a few who doctor the experimental evidence to fit the theory they support, or the prevailing theory. That is one of the reasons experiments are repeated, if possible. What we have seen is that to defend the anthropogenic theory of global warming some scientists have deliberately falsified the data. They have knowingly lied. They have covered up or destroyed data which did not fit their theory. We know for a fact that this has happened; we just don’t know the full extent of it at this time. In this way the bad scientists have mislead thousands of other scientists, and millions of people, who expect honest, ethical, and moral behavior in scientists. We also know that these bad scientists, and their allies, have conspired to prevent other scientists from publishing the results of their work which show evidence to the contrary. It appears that the anthropogenic theory of global warming has been a colossal deception foisted on us by a relatively few bad apples.

To me the proponents of the anthropogenic theory of global warming have lost all credibility and can’t be trusted.

There are various opinions about the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)(about 900 AD to 1300 AD). The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated a modern sharp “hockey stick” increase in global temperatures, based on various proxy data, mainly tree rings. That report did not show the MWP or the Little Ice Age. There were many errors in that analysis, and in the Fourth Assessment Report some of those errors were corrected, diminishing the “hockey-stick.” Tree-ring data has been shown by many scientists to not reflect known reality, but is still used by some scientists. In Hubert Lamb’s book “Climate, History, and the Modern World” [1982] it is shown that over the last 10,000 years there have been many extensive periods warmer than today and cooler than today. The last warm period ended about 800 years ago. Dahl-Jensen showed in “Past temperature directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet,” Science 282:268-271 [1999] that the MWP was warmer than it is today. Proxy data, when excluding the unreliable tree-rings data, also shows the MWP to be warmer than it is today (C. Loehle, “2007: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree-ring proxies,” Energy and Environment 18:1049-1058). A determination of surface temperatures from isotope ratios taken from marine organism remains in deep-sea sediments shows similar results (L.D. Keigwin 1996. “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea.” Science 274: 1504-1508). To these scientific reports could be added others. We also have a considerable amount of historical data which confirms that the MWP was a warmer period of time than today (T.G. Moore 1995. “Global Warming: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals.” Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford CA).

Of course, proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory have what they believe is evidence which diminishes the significance of the MWP, but I find their evidence not compelling. The AGW proponents would also dispute some of the data I have presented. That is to be expected.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change issued a report in April 2008 called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” Twenty four scientists contributed to the report. One of their conclusions is

We show that the twentieth century is in no way unusual and that warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past – without any catastrophic consequences.

I believe this to be the scientific evidence, the fact. I recognize that the facts are disputed, but until I see good evidence to the contrary, this is the way I go.

In answer to the question about human activity being a factor I quote further from the NIPCC report,

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well- established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature- trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from green house models.
It is significant that the IPCC has never made such a comparison, or it would have discovered the same result – namely that the current warming is primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion (On AGW) on circumstantial ‘evidence’ that does not hold up under scrutiny.
…
Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife.

I agree. And, I would consider both answers (a) and (b) to Waldorf and Sauron’s question to be dissent. My opinion is that (b) is probably correct.


I will make a few more comments about “scientific consensus,” to try to directly answer the question. There often is a prevailing theory in a scientific field. A perception of the prevailing theory can be important in guiding what a scientist does, and how he interprets his experimental evidence. A scientist knows that evidence contrary to an entrenched prevailing theory may not get published, and will almost certainly have to withstand intense scrutiny. So, there is pressure and bias to interpret the evidence to conform with theory. However, in normal circumstances there is also the possibility of achieving greater stature if you can propose a better theory that explains all the “known” facts. So, the truth doesn’t depend on how many scientists believe a particular theory, but your prestige and your career may depend on what you wish to publish in regard to what is generally thought to be a well-established theory. And, being human, some scientists are not going to be open-minded about a new theory or evidence that shakes their own careers or long held assumptions. “Scientific consensus” does not matter in determining the truth, but a perception of “scientific consensus” often impedes the progress of science.

I’m not sure that the AGW theory is the theory most scientists believe in, but it does seem to be the theory prevailing in the refereed journals, and in the halls of the politically charged National and International Academies, and in the leadership of some organizations. In the final analysis I will hold to what I believe to be the truth, no matter how many scientists disagree with me.

[dzhonatan]

True scientists never talk about a “consensus” in a favorable way.

Nonsense.

Every experiment is duplicated in various laboratories around the world.

Yes. Why? So that we can build consensus.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. But they do want to figure out how things work, and they want as many scientists as possible to figure out the same thing so that they can all agree. The goal of science is truth, not dissent.

Sometimes consensus is wrong. Perhaps the finest example of this in recent history is the theory of tectonic plates--for decades, the few who believed in it were ridiculed. In a matter of a decade nearly the entire scientific community changed its mind.

But your statement about "true scientists" is still patently false.

[NerdGirl]

The theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is just that, a theory. All science can do is tell us that maybe the theory is true, and maybe the theory is false. Scientists are free to make hypotheses regarding this theory. They can make the hypothesis, essentially a guess, that the theory is likely mostly true. Or the scientists can make some other guess, such as that the theory is likely mostly untrue. As the hypotheses are tested against empirical facts some hypotheses gain support, while others lose support. There is too much that we don’t know, and too few reliable facts at this time to close the door on research and declare that one or the other hypothesis is the correct one. Actually, true scientists never absolutely close the door; there is always the chance that the prevailing theory needs to be modified, as new data may show.

True scientists never talk about a “consensus” in a favorable way. That is the talk of politicians or someone who is more interested in getting his point of view accepted than he is interested in the truth. The one who talks about consensus is afraid that you might find out he is wrong, and he doesn’t want you to explore other possibilities. The goal of science is not consensus. Science is a process to guide us in the discovery of truth. In true science every theory is continually challenged. Every experiment is duplicated in various laboratories around the world. The goal is to find out what might be wrong with someone else’s theory, and to propose new theories if you can find fault with another’s theory. Scientists are skeptics. When a scientist writes a position statement regarding his science he tries to present the generally prevailing theory, and some of the opposing theories, being careful to try to keep his own bias and opinions out of the discussion. But scientists, being human, are sometimes blind to their own assumptions and prejudices, or unaware of the dishonesty of some scientists.

What we sometimes see in science are a few who doctor the experimental evidence to fit the theory they support, or the prevailing theory. That is one of the reasons experiments are repeated, if possible. What we have seen is that to defend the anthropogenic theory of global warming some scientists have deliberately falsified the data. They have knowingly lied. They have covered up or destroyed data which did not fit their theory. We know for a fact that this has happened; we just don’t know the full extent of it at this time. In this way the bad scientists have mislead thousands of other scientists, and millions of people, who expect honest, ethical, and moral behavior in scientists. We also know that these bad scientists, and their allies, have conspired to prevent other scientists from publishing the results of their work which show evidence to the contrary. It appears that the anthropogenic theory of global warming has been a colossal deception foisted on us by a relatively few bad apples.

...

I will make a few more comments about “scientific consensus,” to try to directly answer the question. There often is a prevailing theory in a scientific field. A perception of the prevailing theory can be important in guiding what a scientist does, and how he interprets his experimental evidence. A scientist knows that evidence contrary to an entrenched prevailing theory may not get published, and will almost certainly have to withstand intense scrutiny. So, there is pressure and bias to interpret the evidence to conform with theory. However, in normal circumstances there is also the possibility of achieving greater stature if you can propose a better theory that explains all the “known” facts. So, the truth doesn’t depend on how many scientists believe a particular theory, but your prestige and your career may depend on what you wish to publish in regard to what is generally thought to be a well-established theory. And, being human, some scientists are not going to be open-minded about a new theory or evidence that shakes their own careers or long held assumptions. “Scientific consensus” does not matter in determining the truth, but a perception of “scientific consensus” often impedes the progress of science.

Yes, yes, yes! In the immortal words of TAMN, every time I hear about scientific consensus, or about something being a "scientifically-proven fact", I throw up in mouth a little. So many scientists ignore the scientific method in favor of advancing their own careers. And to quote a sourceless quote I once heard in on of my graduate astronomy classes at BYU, "Any theory that agrees with all of the observations must be wrong, because at least some of the observations have to be wrong." Consensus is a political thing, not a scientific thing. Scientific consensus is very dangerous. It encourages us to hang on to ideas that are wrong. I could list a bunch of examples from astronomy. The business of science is to move closer truth by disproving false theories. Deduction, not induction, and all of that sort of thing.

Science (definitely in this case) also seems to suffer all too frequently from the "correlation implies causation" fallacy. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that human activities are causing climate change. I've done a bit more reading and research since this discussion started, and assuming I can trust the evidence that people are presenting, it seems to me that the climate is actually changing. But it also seems to me that the change is more complex and has been going on for much longer than the media and the politicians would have us believe. I think the magnitude of it and the projected effects of it are not at all clear at this point. Much more research needs to be done. Human activities may be contributing to it, but I think they're just a drop in the bucket. I also don't think anything we do at this point will reverse the trend.

That being said, I'm all for limiting emissions and taking good care of the environment. Our quality of life will obviously be better if we clean up our air and water. I don't even drive a car. I walk and I take the bus when things aren't in walking distance. I recycle. I eat unprocessed food with very little packaging. I think these are all good things to do. I just think that the people who think that doing these things will save us from certain destruction need to prepare to be disappointed.

[vorpal blade]

Thank you NerdGirl for your comments. I agree completely with you, and it looks like you agree completely with me in regard to scientific consensus. That’s good.

I agree with you, dzhonatan, that the goal of science is truth. I also agree with you that sometimes scientific consensus can be wrong and delay the progress of truth. NerdGirl says that scientific consensus is a dangerous thing, and I think that is a good point, for the reasons she gave.

Where dzhonatan and I disagree (other than that I speak “nonsense” and say “patently false” things) seems to be in the statement that “they [scientists] want as many scientists as possible to figure out the same thing so that they can all agree.” This brings to mind an idea of a scientist using a refereed journal to make an argument. To take a position and try to persuade other scientists to accept it. To lobby for a particular theory. The reason this is considered very bad form is that science is supposed to be unbiased, objective, and to let the facts speak for themselves. Are you familiar with scientific articles, the kind you find in the most prestigious journals, which seem to be polemic, or argumentative? I would be extremely suspicious of such an article, and feel certain that the author was presenting a one-sided or biased viewpoint. This might be appropriate for a letter, or in some forum or organization given to advocate a position, but it is not how scientists I know conduct the business of science. A real scientist doesn’t try to “sell” his theory. Does he hope others will agree with him? Well, read on.

Recently the question was asked on Yahoo Answers, “Should scientists be working to achieve a consensus of opinion?” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 339AArFGjr There were some interesting answers.

Consensus means nothing, only scientific truth has any validity, test and verify.

• Another said this:

Real science is not based on trying to get a consensus. Not in any of the natural sciences or derivatives thereof. A scientist is supposed to be bound by the Scientific Method of exploring all avenues of hypothesis, experimentation, and theory. Naturally, if one hypothesis seems to be "the one" that best addresses a problem or question at hand, that should be the primary avenue of investigation.

Once the scientists' hypothesis has been shown to likely be true through his or her own experimentation, this should then move to other scientists to do their own experimentation on the same hypothesis. If there is a sufficient mound of data pointing to a "true" result for the hypothesis, it should become theory, hopefully accepted around the scientific community. However, if it is not, it is not the scientist's place to simply pound home the concept. He or she may present additional data, even better if it comes from different experimental avenues.

Actual consensus comes from the agreement of the other scientists of their own accord. They will either accept your data as theory, reject your data as false, or take the middle ground of ,"Looks possible, but let's experiment on it some more."

The unfortunate part of scientific consensus these days revolves around money and politics. Some scientists will come to any "fact" that someone wants, as long as they are guaranteed grant money, etc. Scientists can be bought, just like anyone else inclined to that sort of thing.

In the open field of international affairs, something like global warming may demand consensus politically, as countries and individuals jockey for power. These politicians will take science and often bend it to their own benefit to push through their agenda in an effort to reach a consensus on problem X and item X. Not to be too cynical or anything, but most of the time, these politicians and activists do not have our pure best interests in mind.

So no, a scientists should NEVER seek to actively reach a consensus any further than presenting data, and methods of achieving that data. In the proper scientific environment, this is how things are supposed to work.
Source(s):
Experienced geologist.

• A third said

No one leaves anything science related to politicians.

Scientists are educated to be skeptics, we do not try to get a consensus. We may tacitly hope that we find results that agree with someone else, but that might not be the case, and it is not the goal, it is just a test. If two people obtain similar results, then maybe the measurements/theory that you are comparing is valid, but still -- maybe not. On the other hand, if no one can reproduce certain results, it is likely that the singular event had some errors in it.

Experiments validate theory, results validate physics. Other scientists do not validate others. That is not how the world should work, and thankfully it does not.

There was a fourth quote, but you can look that up for yourself, if you want.
There are some people who think there is such a thing as scientific consensus. See, for example, the Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus As you might expect I thought the article was biased.

By the way, NerdGirl, I have ridden a bicycle to work now for over 30 years. I recycle everything. I have a huge compost pile, which I regularly work into my garden. So, I’m like you in actually trying to be responsible for the environment.

[vorpal blade]

In the global warming debate everyone agrees that there are cycles of global temperature change. Everyone agrees that man could have some effect on the environment. We disagree whether global warming is a good thing or a bad thing. We disagree on mode and tempo; that is we disagree on the exact mechanisms and how fast they work. But the great division between scientists boils down to just three camps, (1) those who believe that the man-made contribution to global climate change is significant, (2) those who believe that it is insignificant, and (3) those who don’t know enough to venture an opinion.

The consequence of believing that man makes a significant contribution to global warming depends on whether you think that it is a good thing or a bad thing. If you believe it is a bad thing, and if man is significantly responsible, then we should do something about it, if that is possible.

On the other hand, if you believe that man’s contribution is insignificant then you still might like to see an end to the burning of fossil fuels and the like, but there is no global urgency in doing so. You can wait until we have time to develop efficient and economical substitutes. There is no crisis to drive immediate action. Giving up our high standards of living will not affect global climate change. There is no guilt that we should pay billions of dollars to less developed nations, as they are demanding of us.

So, scientists fall into one of the three camps I mentioned, but they also may vary in their degree of confidence within their camp. They may feel absolutely certain that man’s contribution is minor, or they may feel that this is probably the truth, but there is a good chance they are wrong. Perhaps they wish to error on the safe side. Or they may feel that man probably plays a significant role in global climate change, but they have some doubts about the certainty of the science on the issue.

So, how do scientists feel about the current state of the science on this issue? Some people, like Al Gore, would lead you to believe that almost every scientist falls into camp 1, that man makes a significant difference in global climate change. One of the experts Al Gore referenced was Naomi Oreskes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes This is the same person referenced by Waldorf and Sauron

I ask because an assumption built in to my initial argument is that we ought to trust scientific consensuses. Now, we have been arguing whether such a consensus exists, but you raise the question whether scientific consensus even matters. In this article published in Science Magazine by Naomi Oreskes, she sampled 928 refereed journal articles with the keywords "climate change" and found that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Interestingly, she follows that up with a degree of uncertainty:

Oreskes later wrote more of an explanation for her analysis of the 928 papers. http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/docu ... apter4.pdf It is kind of interesting how she determined that there were no refereed journal articles that disagreed with the consensus position.

After a first reading to determine appropriate categories of analysis, the papers were divided as follows: (1) those explicitly endorsing the consensus position, (2) those explicitly refuting the consensus position, (3) those discussing methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring, or predicting climate change, (4) those discussing potential or documenting actual impacts of climate change, (5) those dealing with paleoclimate change, and (6) those proposing mitigation strategies. How many fell into category 2—that is, how many of these papers present evidence that refutes the statement: ‘‘Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why’’? The answer is remarkable: none.

Well, maybe not so remarkable. All scientists, whether in camp 1 or camp 2 believe global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why. The question is, how big a part? So, of course there are not going to be any papers which try to refute what everyone believes. This does not mean, naturally, that no papers disagree with the statement that human activity is primarily responsible for the change. Dr. Oreskes used the wrong test to determine which papers disagree with the “consensus.”

Dr. Oreskes claimed that about 20 percent of the refereed journal articles explicitly support what she believes is the “consensus” opinion, which is that “Climate scientists agree that global warming is real and substantially attributable to human activities.” One of the problems in Dr. Oreskes study is that evidently any article that indicates that global climate change (whether hotter or colder) may be occurring, and any evidence that man may play a part (no matter how small and insignificant) in that change is considered endorsing the “consensus” opinion. Dr. Benny Peiser (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... peiser.pdf) found

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/O ... tracts.htm

Dr. Oreskes said that 75 percent of the 928 articles explicitly or implicitly support the consensus view. It is rather interesting how Dr. Oreskes can claim 75 percent. Well, according to Dr. Oreskes, if the article doesn’t say anything about whether global climate change is man-made or not then we can assume that implicitly the authors meant to say it was primarily man-made.

A few comments are in order. First, often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of a paper do think about global climate change. This is a consequence of experts writing for experts: many elements are implicit. If a conclusion is widely accepted, then it is not necessary to reiterate it within the context of expert discussion. Scientists generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees.

This is clearly the case with the largest portion of the papers examined (approximately half of the total)—those dealing with impacts of climate change. The authors evidently accept the premise that climate change is real and want to track, evaluate, and understand its impacts. Nevertheless, such impacts could, at least in some cases, be the results of natural variability rather than human activities. Strikingly, none of the papers used that possibility to argue against the consensus position.

It would be rather odd for a paper discussing impacts to argue for or against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Nevertheless, I can just as easily claim, using Dr. Oreskes data and arguments, that the majority of the articles implicitly support camp 2 or 3, what I believe, and implicitly reject the anthropogenic theory because they don’t explicitly support it. In other words I could just as easily say, “Nevertheless, such impacts could, at least in some cases, be the results of human activities rather than natural variability. Strikingly, none of the papers used that possibility to argue against the theory that global climate change is primarily due to natural causes.”

So, using Dr. Oreskes data I can say that the majority of the refereed articles accept, either explicitly or implicitly, the view that global climate change is NOT primarily caused by man. A mere 20 percent (using her own selection criteria), or perhaps as few as 13 articles out of 928 (using Dr. Peiser’s criteria), argue the contrary position that global climate change is primarily anthropogenic. My argument is as good as Dr. Oreskes’s argument. The perceived "consensus" depends a great deal on the spin you put on your analysis.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I'm going to read and respond more later, but Peiser isn't a great source.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 777013.htm

[vorpal blade]

I was aware that Dr. Peiser has been viciously attacked on the Internet for criticizing Naomi Oreskes. I had, in fact, read the same article you referenced, plus several others. I framed my discussion in such a way to avoid depending on anything Dr. Peiser said. However, out of fairness to Dr. Peiser I would like to call attention to some of the misrepresentations critics have made of what Dr. Peiser said.

Media Watch says:

In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims.

Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.

What happened ( see http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... peiser.pdf) was that Dr. Peiser tried to duplicate Naomi Oreskes results by repeating her experiment – her review of documents. Using the key words that Oreskes said she used “climate change,” Dr. Peiser found about 12,000 articles. Oreskes responded that she had erred when she said that. She really meant that she used the search words “global climate change.” That brought the numbers of articles down considerably.

Dr. Peiser then tried to publish his criticism of Oreskes. He mentioned a number of articles which disproved Oreskes assertions of no dissent to the consensus opinion. Oreskes replied that when she said she had used abstracts of “articles,” she really meant original research articles and not review articles. That further reduced Dr. Peisers’s list of dissenting articles. With a few more iterations Dr. Peisers criticisms and Oreskes and her supporters redefining the original selection criteria, Oreskes and her supporters were able to whittle away a few more of the dissenting articles Dr. Peiser had pointed out. Dr. Peiser also decided to withdraw a few of the dissenting articles from consideration as there was strong criticism that they weren’t clearly dissenting. I would have called them dissenting, but not everyone would.

Did Dr. Peiser “back away” from those claims? I would say that Oreskes offered new criteria for her study which undermined Peiser’s claims, so he was forced to withdraw them. Did Dr. Peiser “now admit he didn’t check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used?” Well, if you believe the latest claims of Oreskes then Dr. Peiser check all of the articles Naomi Oreskes could have legitimately used, plus some. There is still some disagreement because Oreskes has never said exactly what articles she used in her study.

Peiser says he withdrew his criticism in March this year.

This is another misrepresentation. As the letter Peiser wrote to Media Watch points out, he merely withdrew the part of his criticism taken away when Oreske changed what she had been saying was her search strategy.

Media Watch isn't a great source.

But my point is independent of Peiser’s analysis. My point is that when Oreskes determined which articles supported the “consensus,” and which articles dissented from the “consensus,” she used a definition of the “scientific consensus” as “Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why.” Since everyone agrees with this, both the so-called “consensus” and the so-called “dissenters,” her results are meaningless. She interprets her data as support for the idea that man is very likely primarily responsible for global warming, but her approach gives just as much support to the dissenting point of view.