Climate Change: the scientific consensus. (1 Viewer)

[Feynman Lives!]

Let's, first of all, make clear what a scientific consensus is. It's not, as some people think, an agreement of opinions, or an agreement among scientists. A scientific consensus is an agreement among peer-reviewed studies! In science, what scientists opine is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what they can prove. And the ONLY way in which scientists can PROVE anything is through studies that undergo a proper peer-review process and are published.

What specifically does the consensus say? The consensus is simply this: that the surface temperature of the planet is increasing at an unprecedented rate. And that the cause of this is human activity. It is also considered part of the scientific consensus that the consequences of this will be very negative to humans and maybe even human civilization unless extraordinary steps are taken to mitigate the effects. This is usually referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW for short.

Now, let's be clear about one thing. This thread is NOT about Climate science. This paragraph will be. But only to clarify. I'm sure there are many other threads where you can discuss climatology. Not this one. This is about the epistemological aspects of AGW. ALL the science we need is either compiled or referenced on the IPCC website: https://www.ipcc.ch/ There you can find access to over 125 years of climate science.

Ok. So let's talk about the AGW consensus. As I said, the peer-reviewed papers don't have to be unanimous. But it has to be very NEAR unanimous. In over 125 years, there are obviously papers that contradict the consensus. However, in the last 25 years (more or less) there hasn't been ANY that contradict the AGW consensus. The few that there were, were removed.... mostly by their own authors.... due to methodological errors found in post-publication peer-review. Very few subjects in science enjoy such a high level of certainty. That would be in the ball-park level of Evolution, Gravitational Theory and Cell Theory... I mean, very very trustworthy.

Now.... there is no consensus as to the consequences of AGW. The consensus is that they will be dire. But not exactly WHAT they will be. There are some things that we might be seeing to which there is general agreement: more heat (and more deaths for heat-stroke), stronger hurricane activity, more insect-carried diseases, etc. But there is no consensus as to when exactly we will start seeing this. A couple of decades ago, we thought we'd start seeing them around the middle of this century. However, scientists are alarmed because it's POSSIBLE that we may be starting to see them now. We ARE seeing record high temperatures just about every year. And that is not a good sign.

From a policy point of view, some on the right have expressed belief that somebody is demanding that they do something. Relax! You don't have to do anything. I mean... it's not a bad thing to use environmentally friendly light bulbs. But that's up to YOU. What IS important is that GOVERNMENTS take action. And government action implies that YOU don't suffer. For example, by making it less expensive for you to have environmentally friendly light bulbs. But no individual is required to do anything whatsoever. The government can pressure manufacturers to do things better. But there is no recommendation by the IPCC to do anything to force individuals to do anything in particular.

So THAT is what it's about. Hopefully this helps anybody with the patience to read it to dissipate many many myths running all over the internets....

 

[PoS]

This has been discussed ad naseum, so the facts bears repeating.

1. Science isnt determined by consensus.
2. The 97% consensus is a myth perpetrated by the MSM and the climate industry.

The Origins of the 97% Consensus Lie

Interesting stuff and very factual. Here are choice bits: "The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed she’d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the “consensus view” that...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Mach]

This has been discussed ad naseum, so the facts bears repeating.

1. Science isnt determined by consensus.
2. The 97% consensus is a myth perpetrated by the MSM and the climate industry.

The Origins of the 97% Consensus Lie

Interesting stuff and very factual. Here are choice bits: "The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed she’d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the “consensus view” that...

debatepolitics.com

1. Strawman.
Consensus in this case just means, essentially, every credible, relevant scientific organization agrees (on the consensus points).
Which is a fact.

2. 97-100% consensus on the consensual points is a fact for man caused global warming.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

 

[dmpi]

All studies differ. How do you reach a 'consensus' without individual scientist interpreting the studies and their results? It's always going to be subjective.

 

[mrjurrs]

Let's, first of all, make clear what a scientific consensus is. It's not, as some people think, an agreement of opinions, or an agreement among scientists. A scientific consensus is an agreement among peer-reviewed studies! In science, what scientists opine is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what they can prove. And the ONLY way in which scientists can PROVE anything is through studies that undergo a proper peer-review process and are published.

What specifically does the consensus say? The consensus is simply this: that the surface temperature of the planet is increasing at an unprecedented rate. And that the cause of this is human activity. It is also considered part of the scientific consensus that the consequences of this will be very negative to humans and maybe even human civilization unless extraordinary steps are taken to mitigate the effects. This is usually referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW for short.

Now, let's be clear about one thing. This thread is NOT about Climate science. This paragraph will be. But only to clarify. I'm sure there are many other threads where you can discuss climatology. Not this one. This is about the epistemological aspects of AGW. ALL the science we need is either compiled or referenced on the IPCC website: https://www.ipcc.ch/ There you can find access to over 125 years of climate science.

Ok. So let's talk about the AGW consensus. As I said, the peer-reviewed papers don't have to be unanimous. But it has to be very NEAR unanimous. In over 125 years, there are obviously papers that contradict the consensus. However, in the last 25 years (more or less) there hasn't been ANY that contradict the AGW consensus. The few that there were, were removed.... mostly by their own authors.... due to methodological errors found in post-publication peer-review. Very few subjects in science enjoy such a high level of certainty. That would be in the ball-park level of Evolution, Gravitational Theory and Cell Theory... I mean, very very trustworthy.

Now.... there is no consensus as to the consequences of AGW. The consensus is that they will be dire. But not exactly WHAT they will be. There are some things that we might be seeing to which there is general agreement: more heat (and more deaths for heat-stroke), stronger hurricane activity, more insect-carried diseases, etc. But there is no consensus as to when exactly we will start seeing this. A couple of decades ago, we thought we'd start seeing them around the middle of this century. However, scientists are alarmed because it's POSSIBLE that we may be starting to see them now. We ARE seeing record high temperatures just about every year. And that is not a good sign.

From a policy point of view, some on the right have expressed belief that somebody is demanding that they do something. Relax! You don't have to do anything. I mean... it's not a bad thing to use environmentally friendly light bulbs. But that's up to YOU. What IS important is that GOVERNMENTS take action. And government action implies that YOU don't suffer. For example, by making it less expensive for you to have environmentally friendly light bulbs. But no individual is required to do anything whatsoever. The government can pressure manufacturers to do things better. But there is no recommendation by the IPCC to do anything to force individuals to do anything in particular.

So THAT is what it's about. Hopefully this helps anybody with the patience to read it to dissipate many many myths running all over the internets....

But but but...I saw a website, video, news report that says it is a hoax...

 

[longview]

I disagree that there is a consensus that the consequences of AGW will be dire, as that requires some agreement
on climate sensitivity.
As for policy, The idea that Human activity is changing the climate, what certainty is there
that government changes will alter the trajectory of the climate?

 

[Mach]

All studies differ.

Irrelevant.

How do you reach a 'consensus' without individual scientist interpreting the studies and their results? It's always going to be subjective.

So your argument is one from ignorance, you don't know what science is?
OK, I agree.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

All studies differ. How do you reach a 'consensus' without individual scientist interpreting the studies and their results? It's always going to be subjective.

Say what??

There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity!

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change - Nature Human Behaviour

Across 27 countries, Većkalov and Geiger et al. find that scientific consensus messaging on climate change is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry but not support for public action.

www.nature.com

Of course there are those with NO scientific knowledge who will still opine about climate science. Imagine that!

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

Now, of those who still don't have the knowledge of science, maybe they can increase their knowledge by doing some reading............

Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming?

No. By a large majority, climate scientists agree that average global temperature today is warmer than in pre-industrial times, and that human activity is the primary contributing factor.

www.climate.gov

Being mindful that those who don't want to know and prefer to remain ignorant, they will avoid that last link.

 

[Mach]

I disagree that there is a consensus that the consequences of AGW will be dire, as that requires some agreement
on climate sensitivity.

What evidence do you have that it won't be dire. Are you published in that field, etc.?

As for policy, The idea that Human activity is changing the climate, what certainty is there that government changes will alter the trajectory of the climate?

So you don't know, you have questions. Try reviewing experts in the field, they know more than you do about this.

Until then, in the real world, problems are identified, solutions are drafted, attempts to correct those problems are tried, we evaluate the progress/outcomes, we draft additional solutions/tweaks as necessary.
Such is all of progress in business, in science, etc. People do this all day every day, in every aspect of our lives/economy, and here you are completely unsure about how that process works?
Climate change is extraordinarily complex, the idea that only with 100% certainty can we proceed, is not applicable in nearly any area this complex/new/broad.

Your just doing man caused global warming denial-lite.

 

[longview]

What evidence do you have that it won't be dire. Are you published in that field, etc.?

So you don't know, you have questions. Try reviewing experts in the field, they know more than you do about this.

Until then, in the real world, problems are identified, solutions are drafted, attempts to correct those problems are tried, we evaluate the progress/outcomes, we draft additional solutions/tweaks as necessary.
Such is all of progress in business, in science, etc. People do this all day every day, in every aspect of our lives/economy, and here you are completely unsure about how that process works?
Climate change is extraordinarily complex, the idea that only with 100% certainty can we proceed, is not applicable in nearly any area this complex/new/broad.

Your just doing man caused global warming denial-lite.

What evidence do you have that the consequences of AGW will be dire?
But this thread is about scientific consensus, and there is no consensus on how sensitive the climate
is to added CO2 or the other human activities that can affect the climate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Let's, first of all, make clear what a scientific consensus is. It's not, as some people think, an agreement of opinions, or an agreement among scientists. A scientific consensus is an agreement among peer-reviewed studies! In science, what scientists opine is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what they can prove. And the ONLY way in which scientists can PROVE anything is through studies that undergo a proper peer-review process and are published.

What specifically does the consensus say? The consensus is simply this: that the surface temperature of the planet is increasing at an unprecedented rate. And that the cause of this is human activity. It is also considered part of the scientific consensus that the consequences of this will be very negative to humans and maybe even human civilization unless extraordinary steps are taken to mitigate the effects. This is usually referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW for short.

Now, let's be clear about one thing. This thread is NOT about Climate science. This paragraph will be. But only to clarify. I'm sure there are many other threads where you can discuss climatology. Not this one. This is about the epistemological aspects of AGW. ALL the science we need is either compiled or referenced on the IPCC website: https://www.ipcc.ch/ There you can find access to over 125 years of climate science.

Ok. So let's talk about the AGW consensus. As I said, the peer-reviewed papers don't have to be unanimous. But it has to be very NEAR unanimous. In over 125 years, there are obviously papers that contradict the consensus. However, in the last 25 years (more or less) there hasn't been ANY that contradict the AGW consensus. The few that there were, were removed.... mostly by their own authors.... due to methodological errors found in post-publication peer-review. Very few subjects in science enjoy such a high level of certainty. That would be in the ball-park level of Evolution, Gravitational Theory and Cell Theory... I mean, very very trustworthy.

Now.... there is no consensus as to the consequences of AGW. The consensus is that they will be dire. But not exactly WHAT they will be. There are some things that we might be seeing to which there is general agreement: more heat (and more deaths for heat-stroke), stronger hurricane activity, more insect-carried diseases, etc. But there is no consensus as to when exactly we will start seeing this. A couple of decades ago, we thought we'd start seeing them around the middle of this century. However, scientists are alarmed because it's POSSIBLE that we may be starting to see them now. We ARE seeing record high temperatures just about every year. And that is not a good sign.

From a policy point of view, some on the right have expressed belief that somebody is demanding that they do something. Relax! You don't have to do anything. I mean... it's not a bad thing to use environmentally friendly light bulbs. But that's up to YOU. What IS important is that GOVERNMENTS take action. And government action implies that YOU don't suffer. For example, by making it less expensive for you to have environmentally friendly light bulbs. But no individual is required to do anything whatsoever. The government can pressure manufacturers to do things better. But there is no recommendation by the IPCC to do anything to force individuals to do anything in particular.

So THAT is what it's about. Hopefully this helps anybody with the patience to read it to dissipate many many myths running all over the internets....

Where is your link to one of the several studies regarding the consensus?

You have never read one, have you. I am all but certain you never have. You see, i have read all of them... unless there are any I am not aware of.

You only read and believe the propaganda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

1. Strawman.
Consensus in this case just means, essentially, every credible, relevant scientific organization agrees (on the consensus points).
Which is a fact.

2. 97-100% consensus on the consensual points is a fact for man caused global warming.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

Wiki...

LOL...LOL...LOL...

What a joke.

LOL...LOL...

Read the actual consensus studies. Now what the liars say.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All studies differ. How do you reach a 'consensus' without individual scientist interpreting the studies and their results? It's always going to be subjective.

Not subjective at all. None of them link the 97% or more with explicit consensus that we are the primary cause. the cook study makes that claim, bit the date he uses doe not support that contention.

 

[Lord of Planar]

But but but...I saw a website, video, news report that says it is a hoax...

Anything in the media, and especially social media, is not to be trusted at face value.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Say what??

There is near-universal consensus (97–99.9%) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the climate is changing as a result of human activity!

A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change - Nature Human Behaviour

Across 27 countries, Većkalov and Geiger et al. find that scientific consensus messaging on climate change is an effective, non-polarizing tool for changing misperceptions, beliefs and worry but not support for public action.

www.nature.com

Of course there are those with NO scientific knowledge who will still opine about climate science. Imagine that!

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

LOL... That's a human nature paper, and it is effectively telling us how effective their brainwashing is working.

You didn't read it. Did you?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

LOL... That's a human nature paper, and it is effectively telling us how effective their brainwashing is working.

Of course there are those with NO scientific knowledge who will still opine about climate science. Imagine that!

Being mindful that those who don't want to know and prefer to remain ignorant, they will avoid that last link.

 

[eman623]

What specifically does the consensus say? The consensus is simply this: that the surface temperature of the planet is increasing at an unprecedented rate. And that the cause of this is human activity. It is also considered part of the scientific consensus that the consequences of this will be very negative to humans and maybe even human civilization unless extraordinary steps are taken to mitigate the effects. This is usually referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW for short.

I don't think you can have a consensus that includes the word "maybe even". That's speculation, not consensus. And "very negative" is vague and undefined. How negative is "very negative"?

The IPCCdid put a number on it at Kyoto. They said that the worst case consequences would be a 10% reduction in global GDP by the end of the century. Of course global GDP will grow anywhere from 800-1000% during that time.

Seems like a 10% reduction is manageable.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

This has been discussed ad naseum, so the facts bears repeating.

1. Science isnt determined by consensus.
2. The 97% consensus is a myth perpetrated by the MSM and the climate industry.

The Origins of the 97% Consensus Lie

Interesting stuff and very factual. Here are choice bits: "The 97% claim seems to have begun with a historian of science named Naomi Oreskes who, in 2004, claimed she’d looked at 928 articles about climate change in scientific journals, that 75% of them endorsed the “consensus view” that...

debatepolitics.com

The OP explains what consensus MEANS. The very first paragraph.

 

[longview]

The OP explains what consensus MEANS. The very first paragraph.

You mean this?

A scientific consensus is an agreement among peer-reviewed studies! In science, what scientists opine is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what they can prove. And the ONLY way in which scientists can PROVE anything is through studies that undergo a proper peer-review process and are published.

The concept of AGW does not meet that criteria, as it is all theoretical.
There is no empirical scientific data supporting the idea that added CO2 cause warming.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Where is your link to one of the several studies regarding the consensus?

{'m not sure I understand the question. The consensus is just a consensus. The studies are in the IPCC link

There was a meta study of papers done in 2004, however.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

You have never read one, have you.

I'm not a climatologist. Anybody claiming to understand it is lying if they're not a climatologist. I did, however, read (and understood) the CONCLUSIONS of many many of them until about... probaby 5 years ago. I wasted my time debating science with science denialists who, not only knew nothing about climatology, but knew nothing about Epistemology.

On that topic, BTW, I DO have what you might call the equivalent of a Minor in Scientific Epistemology. And taught the subject for a bit at the University where I studied.

I am all but certain you never have. You see, i have read all of them... unless there are any I am not aware of.

Well you gotta do that when you study climatology. But first you need to understand HOW science works.

It's irrelevant. OTHER scientists DID read them. And peer-reviewed them before publication. Students, Teachers and... the whole world peer-reviewed them POST publication. That's how science works. And we know it works because.... it works! If it didn't work, we wouldn't have medications, we wouldn't have been to the moon, we wouldn't have an atomic bomb, and we wouldn't be communicating across possibly many miles of distance. All the above ASSUMES that the scientific method works.

You only read and believe the propaganda.

Oh oh.... Science denialists DO like to call peer-reviewed science "propaganda"

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I don't think you can have a consensus that includes the word "maybe even".

The consensus is that it will very negatively affect human beings. No consensus on whether or not it will affect civilization as a whole.

Minutia that is irrelevant to my point.

 

[ataraxia]

Where is your link to one of the several studies regarding the consensus?

You have never read one, have you. I am all but certain you never have. You see, i have read all of them... unless there are any I am not aware of.

You only read and believe the propaganda.

Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
John Cook; et al. (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.

 

[eman623]

The consensus is that it will very negatively affect human beings. No consensus on whether or not it will affect civilization as a whole.

I think you're BSing again.

What is your source? Specifically one that uses the vague and undefined term "very negatively" as the consensus.

And it needs to be from the IPCC or some other well-recognized international governmental organization. A peer-reviewed article is not a consensus.

 

[eman623]

{'m not sure I understand the question. The consensus is just a consensus. The studies are in the IPCC link

There was a meta study of papers done in 2004, however.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Can you show me where the words "very negatively" appear in that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

{'m not sure I understand the question. The consensus is just a consensus. The studies are in the IPCC link

There was a meta study of papers done in 2004, however.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

I'm sorry your standards are so low.

"Likely?"

OK....

I'm not a climatologist. Anybody claiming to understand it is lying if they're not a climatologist.

Do you really believe that human knowledge is so limited?

I did, however, read (and understood) the CONCLUSIONS of many many of them until about... probaby 5 years ago. I wasted my time debating science with science denialists who, not only knew nothing about climatology, but knew nothing about Epistemology.

So you label everyone the same.

How bigoted...

On that topic, BTW, I DO have what you might call the equivalent of a Minor in Scientific Epistemology. And taught the subject for a bit at the University where I studied.

Then you know that generalization does not apply to everyone.

Well you gotta do that when you study climatology. But first you need to understand HOW science works.

And some of us do.

It's irrelevant. OTHER scientists DID read them. And peer-reviewed them before publication. Students, Teachers and... the whole world peer-reviewed them POST publication. That's how science works. And we know it works because.... it works! If it didn't work, we wouldn't have medications, we wouldn't have been to the moon, we wouldn't have an atomic bomb, and we wouldn't be communicating across possibly many miles of distance. All the above ASSUMES that the scientific method works.

Yes, and I have read hundreds, if no, over a thousand of peer reviewed papers on the subject.

How many have you read?

Oh oh.... Science denialists DO like to call peer-reviewed science "propaganda"

I would place extremely few papers in that category. I notice how carefully worded they are using improper synonyms to convey a bias. I guess that depends on where you wish to slide that goalpost. There are plenty of papers out there however that totaly7 ignore variables that do have an effect on they results. The question in my mind, is is it was by ignorance or intent.