"What's important is that this is not just one study -- it's the consensus of multiple studies," Sarah Green, one of the authors and a professor at the Michigan Technological University, says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, "conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."
Environmental Research Letters published the paper this week. In it, the team lays out what they call "consensus on consensus" and draws from seven independent consensus studies by the co-authors. This includes a study from 2013, in which the researchers surveyed more than 11,000 abstracts and found most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. Through this new collaboration, multiple consensus researchers -- and their data gathered from different approaches -- lead to essentially the same conclusion.
The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.
The point of this research is to further emphasis that the strongest level of consensus is found amongst the experts in this field.
And that's the problem, of course: In this extremely politicized field, "expertise" pretty much equals sticking to the "consensus". If you apply for a grant as a "climate scientist", you are justifying the request by the ever-more-urgent "concern about global warming" etc. And if it is not "man-made", then perhaps there's not much that can be "unmade" by man, so what's the point. Of course, physicists of all stripes still can get funding for something else and keep resisting the "consensus" on individual basis, but then they will not be defined as "climate scientists".
So, now what?
And that, my friend, is what we call an unproveable theory.
And that, my friend, is what we call an unproveable theory.
Consensus doesn't make science. And, there really isn't a actual consensus to begin with when both sides of the argument often rely on cherry picked information to match their own agendas.
Not a theory, amigo, just the reality anyone who worked in academia for long enough is very familiar with: as soon as politics gets involved, huge biases and distortions occur in funding and in the very structure of scientific fields.
And yet, patently obvious to anyone who is looking for a justification to hold onto their previously held beliefs.
So, now what?
Went ahead and fixed that one for you.
Then prove your assertion. That these publishing experts are doing so out of a desire to obtain funding as opposed to publishing the conclusion that the data requires.
There are millions of factors affecting the climate of this planet. Are we one of them? Without question. However take away the sun and you will find out how insignificant we actually are. Take away the moon and now we have no tides. Again you will find just how insignificant we are. What about our magnetic field. Remove that and see how significant we are. What about continental drift, ocean currents, super volcanoes, comet and asteroid strikes? They can bring about changes that again make us insignificant. We are still discovering the countless factors involved in climate change. The climate on this planet has been changing for billions of years and will continue with or without us. The ice ages and warm periods have come and gone for billions of years without our help. To assume all of a sudden the few hundred years we have been producing green house gases is the cause of climate change on this planet is simply stupid and arrogant the same as the belief we were the center of the universe. We are a factor along with millions of other things and most likely very far down the list in the order of significance. There is still more information that we have yet to discover and don't know. Most likely a lot more than what we do know. So forgive me if I don't believe the earth is flat and we are going to sail off the edge. I think there is a lot more to learn before we know it all.
The data does not require anything - it is what it is. Say, you have a set of data showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the acidity of the oceans had increased by so much. It correlates with the increase of the carbon dioxide release from fossil fuels by humans. Correlation is not causation, and in a system so complex and poorly understood you cannot really say whether our burning stuff accounts for 5% of the observed change, or 50%, or 95%.
Now, if you have Scientist A who emphasizes the possible connection (thus pleasing certain political forces), and Scientist B who says, basically, that he collected some data but God knows what it all really means, who do you think will get the money next time around?
Is that your method of proving your assertion? Asking a hypothetical question about two fictional scientists that may or may not receive funding from a fictional political force?
We are able to study the influences of potential factors on climate change. We can measure the influence of solar activity, volcanic activity, orbital mechanics, etc. We can control for those measures in our analysis. And that analysis can be checked, triple checked, and quadruple checked by multiple groups from around the world that depend, to some extent, on funding from a vast array of political forces.
And when you reach a level of consensus like the one referenced in the OP, the chances that some hypothetical bias is going to explain it all becomes increasingly unlikely.
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.
This thread isn't really devoted to the solutions that global warming requires. This is just further confirmation of the consensus amongst the experts that there IS a problem that requires solutions.
Yes humans are causing some warming.
How much?
I know that those with limited capacity to think can only hold one idea in their heads at once but for us skeptics the argument is more complex.
No it doesn't. It means actively publishing in the field.And that's the problem, of course: In this extremely politicized field, "expertise" pretty much equals sticking to the "consensus".
If you apply for a grant as a "climate scientist", you are justifying the request by the ever-more-urgent "concern about global warming" etc. And if it is not "man-made", then perhaps there's not much that can be "unmade" by man, so what's the point.
Of course, physicists of all stripes still can get funding for something else and keep resisting the "consensus" on individual basis, but then they will not be defined as "climate scientists".
Consensus doesn't make science.
And, there really isn't a actual consensus to begin with when both sides of the argument often rely on cherry picked information to match their own agendas.
There are millions of factors affecting the climate of this planet. Are we one of them? Without question. However take away the sun and you will find out how insignificant we actually are. Take away the moon and now we have no tides. Again you will find just how insignificant we are. What about our magnetic field. Remove that and see how significant we are. What about continental drift, ocean currents, super volcanoes, comet and asteroid strikes?
They can bring about changes that again make us insignificant. We are still discovering the countless factors involved in climate change. The climate on this planet has been changing for billions of years and will continue with or without us. The ice ages and warm periods have come and gone for billions of years without our help.
To assume all of a sudden the few hundred years we have been producing green house gases is the cause of climate change on this planet is simply stupid and arrogant
That belief failed because of evidence which was (and is) unrefuted. Which is the same reason climate denial has failed: zero evidence to support your position.the same as the belief we were the center of the universe.
Utterly and totally false, as mountains of evidence has already shown. Humans are responsible for the current climate change.We are a factor along with millions of other things and most likely very far down the list in the order of significance.
So forgive me if I don't believe the earth is flat and we are going to sail off the edge. I think there is a lot more to learn before we know it all.
The data does not require anything - it is what it is. Say, you have a set of data showing that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the acidity of the oceans had increased by so much. It correlates with the increase of the carbon dioxide release from fossil fuels by humans. Correlation is not causation, and in a system so complex and poorly understood you cannot really say whether our burning stuff accounts for 5% of the observed change, or 50%, or 95%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?