What is (and isn't) the AGW Scientific Consensus?

[Peter]

The climate is changing because of the activities of humanity and we have the ability to slow that process if we put some effort in.

Some people don't want to bother putting the effort in and lots do.
The UK for instance is going all in on renewables and new nuclear power.
This will cut our dependence on fosil fuels and we've already closed all coal fired power stations.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah, actually do. there are several studies afoot that postulate the AGW contribution of CO2 increases logarithmically rather than linearly.

There are rare fringe papers in all fields of science — in medicine, physics, biology, chemistry, etc…

In physics and chemistry, for example, now and then there are papers appear arguing to perpetual motion machines or “cold fusion” as a limitless energy source. They get attention, especially by the lay press for a bit, but don’t hold up to replication.

There are published papers claiming that vaccines cause autism — but the overwhelming body of evidence shows they don’t, and the original paper behind that claim was retracted.

And I can show you papers claiming humans and dinosaurs coexisted. They’re fringe and get no traction in the broader scientific community

But science moves forward by weight of evidence, not by outliers. The logarithmic effect of CO₂ is actually mainstream physics now and already baked into climate models, which still show significant and potentially catastrophic warming.

 

[ataraxia]

Your is an appeal to authority argument!
I could care less about group think.

Then surely you can give ONE example of anything ever considered science before such consensus.

Even Galileo and Einstein convinced their peers of their revolutionary new ideas before their work was considered science.

 

[longview]

A single paper published in a fringe journal, from over 20 years ago, which pushes a gravity-mass-only hypothesis for warming. It doesn’t hold up to real-world data or established radiative physics, which consistently show CO₂ as a primary driver of Earth’s energy imbalance.

It does not refute the overwhelming number of publications and the scientific consensus today.

You must have looked REALLY hard to find stuff like this. It’s as rare as hen’s teeth. Congratulations!

How do you know it does not hold up to real world data?
To me the empirical data is that the lower the atmospheric pressure the lower the delta is between the theoretical blackbody temperature and the observed temperature.
Remember it only takes one scientist to be correct! The volume of publication have no bearing.

 

[longview]

Then surely you can give ONE example of anything ever considered science before such consensus.

Even Galileo and Einstein convinced their peers of their revolutionary new ideas before their work was considered science.

They did not!
One Hundred Authors Against Einstein
And Galileo was banned from publication!

 

[Volunteer]

Remember it only takes one scientist to be correct!

But when hundreds of thousands agree that carbon is a problem shouldn't the few skeptics need to review the data again?

 

[longview]

But when hundreds of thousands agree that carbon is a problem shouldn't the few skeptics need to review the data again?

Do they really agree to that, or is what they agree with is that
A: The average temperature has increased over the last century, and
B: That human activity is involved?