The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change

[del]

at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

are you this stupid in real life?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

are you this stupid in real life?

Many of the Warmers are in fact at least that stupid in real life

 

[Zander]

Deciding science by consensus is unscientific.

But whackjob dilettantes playing at science somehow think it is. They soil science.

Scientific Consensus circa 1250 AD:
Scientist #1- The earth is FLAT!!!!
Scientists # 2-#1,000,000 - WE AGREE!!!
CONSENSUS - THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!!

That settles it for me.

 

[RollingThunder]

at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

The fact that you think some sort of consensus is relevant to the science rules you out as any significant contributor in the debate.

You are soiling science and thus you are an enemy of science.

LOLOLOL....the fact that you think that scientific consensus has no relevance to science or to public policy making indicates that you are scientifically illiterate and ignorant about the real world. It is you nutjob denier cultists who are enemies of science.

In the real world, this is how it works:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus]Scientific consensus[/URL]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that consensus has been reached to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, many people of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[8] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[9]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[10] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[11] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[10]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness.

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. One might observe though, that in so far as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data, and well attested and accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.

Such considerations informed the development of 'the precautionary principle' most famously as Principle 15 of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. This stated that lack of scientific certainty was no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment. Those who oppose robust and ubiquitous action to mitigate what the IPCC-led consensus sees as driving climate change frequently cite 'skepticism' as at the heart of 'true science' in an attempt to imply that concepts such as 'scientific consensus' can have no standing and thus play no role in public policy. Yet where this argument is not simply an instantiation of special pleading for 'business-as-usual' policies one can argue that this simply makes a false amalgam between scientific methodology as an intellectual discipline and scientifically informed policy formation, which is the benchmark for rational public policy in all areas where debates about the quality and significance of measurable real-world phenomena are pertinent.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

 

[code1211]

Just as 1 billion times zero equals zero so does this list.

What equals zero is the number of functioning brain cells in your little pinhead, walleyed.

Do any or all of these folks explain why the climate has warmed by only 0.7 degrees in the last 2000 years.

Do any or all of these folks explain why the climate has cooled by 1 degree over the last 8000 years.

Links are welcome.

 

[code1211]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

<snip>

][/B]

Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

<snip>

][/B]

Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?

or any repeatable laboratory experiments

 

[code1211]

at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change. One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.

It's not and it's not.

 

[RollingThunder]

Deciding science by consensus is unscientific.

But whackjob dilettantes playing at science somehow think it is. They soil science.

Scientific Consensus circa 1250 AD:
Scientist #1- The earth is FLAT!!!!
Scientists # 2-#1,000,000 - WE AGREE!!!
CONSENSUS - THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!!

That settles it for me.

LOLOLOL. So you're really ignorant about history as well as very clueless about science. Hardly surprising in a rightwingnut denier cultist like you.

Here's a news flash for you, buttercup.

Circa 1250 AD - there were no scientists in the modern sense of the term, let alone a million of them, you retard. There was no scientific process whereby ideas, observations, evidence, data from experiments and theories were communicated and tested by others. No peer-reviewed scientific journals, no scientific conferences, no methods for anyone to perceive any "consensus" among the non-existent "scientists" of the time. To say that was anything like the current world scientific consensus regarding AGW back in the middle ages regarding the shape of the Earth is both wrong and stupid. In fact the 'flat earth' idea had long since been replaced by the realization the Earth is spherical.

Flat Earth

Beginning from ancient Greek astronomy, the paradigm of a round (or more accurately, spherical) earth gradually spread around the world supplanting the older cosmological belief in a flat earth.[1][2][3][4]

The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[5] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[6] The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[5]

Myth of the Flat Earth

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.[1].

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[2]

David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[3][4]

Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. [1]

* "... with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."[5]

In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.[6]

Since the early 20th century, a number of books and articles have been devoted to debunking this myth, with varying effect.

Louise Bishop wrote:

* Virtually every thinker and writer of the thousand-year medieval period affirmed the spherical shape of the earth.[21]

 

[PixieStix]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that consensus has been reached to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]

To see the position statements issued by the world scientific institutes and societies, check this out.

Scientific opinion on climate change

Some facts for you: Correlation does not equal Causation. Consensus is not SCIENCE.

But, but, I have the chart to prove it

 

[Zander]

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that consensus has been reached to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]

To see the position statements issued by the world scientific institutes and societies, check this out.

Scientific opinion on climate change

Some facts for you: Correlation does not equal Causation. Consensus is not SCIENCE.

But, but, I have the chart to prove it

Well played!!! Here's another.......Leprechauns cause Global warming!!!

 

[Zander]

Clearly. killing of Pirates cause Global warming. Just look at this chart!! Also, I spoke with a scientist around the corner, he agreed. We now have correlation and consensus. Take that Deniers!!!

 

[frazzledgear]

The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change

Too bad science and scientific truth is never determined by a CONSENSUS. Maybe you didn't know that, maybe you really are impressed by sheer numbers and maybe you really think whatever the majority agrees with at the time automatically becomes scientific truth. You are wrong.

At one time there was UNIFORM consensus of the world that the sun and planets all revolved around the earth. Well since it was a CONSENSUS, that obviously proved they really were revolving around the earth and they didn't stop revolving around the earth until the CONSENSUS was they weren't revolving around the earth. At one time there was consensus that the ability to turn other metals into gold was possible -I guess that means it really was possible to turn other metals into gold until the CONSENSUS decided it wasn't possible after all. Only then was it no longer possible to turn other metals into gold. See how science becomes whatever you NEED it to be if you decide just having a CONSENSUS about it is what determines scientific accuracy and truth? I would laugh except for the fact there was once a consensus regarding the theory of eugenics and 6,000,000 Jews died because of that consensus as did another 6,000,000,000 handicapped, gypsies, homosexuals and political enemies. But I'm sure with their last gasp they were all so relieved to know that there was such a significant consensus who agreed they all belonged dead.

A CONSENSUS doesn't impress me whatsoever and frankly I wonder about people who are when it comes to science since the opinions of others about whether they believe a theory they have heard about serves ZERO purpose except to those pushing a political agenda in front of that theory. For those who have politicized it, then a CONSENSUS about how to best exploit that theory for their political agenda is absolutely necessary -which is why people like you keep pretending a CONSENSUS is really, really important because that is how a theory gets proved out.

Otherwise being impressed by a consensus is pretty much like asking a group of janitors their opinions about how to best remove a brain tumor. If they don't know how to remove it in the first place then why would you even give a flying fuck what their opinion was? So why should I be impressed by the names of BUSINESSES about whether global warming is true or not? ROFL

Try to get this one. Others are NEVER under any obligation to explain or justify why they refuse to fall on their knees and treat an unproven and hotly disputed theory as a religion and pretend scientists are gods and I must worship whatever gibberish they feel like theorizing about. It is ABSOLUTELY incumbent upon scientists to provide the INDISPUTABLE evidence and facts first. Since this theory is not only very much disputed on several different levels but there are now REAMS of evidence the data has been falsified, raw data destroyed, lies, distortions and exaggerations made that would put any drama queen to shame -then sorry, your consensus doesn't mean jack shit and it still has no bearing on making this theory somehow more likely to be true than not. Your gods of science turned out to have feet of clay -no less corruptible than any other kind of human being, no less guilty of lying, fabricating, falsifying and cheating. They get caught cheating, lying and destroying raw data and people like you STILL demand unquestioning worship at this altar? Wow I can't think of ANY other scientific theory where there have been such scores of accusations and evidence of falsifying data, destruction of raw data, lies and exaggerations where that theory ended up proving out after all. Probably because the TRUTH doesn't need be to falsified to be true. CORRUPTION does not make good science and only renders it all suspect. No matter how many corporations and others who didn't do any of the work may be otherwise impressed.

A consensus will never make a theory more likely to be correct than having a consensus about the world being flat actually meant something about whether the earth really was flat or not. What a pity there are still people who believe otherwise. /url]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly. killing of Pirates cause Global warming. Just look at this chart!! Also, I spoke with a scientist around the corner, he agreed. We now have correlation and consensus. Take that Deniers!!!

I have peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".

LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.

<snip>

][/B]

Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?

Me, I would dump more money into researching the effects on clouds and other factors that control our climate. Until than no model will even come close to being able to forecast the climate. In fact it will be a joke.

We don't have a idea what all the factors are. We know some, but we don't have a long enough record of even the ones we know. Hell yes it shakes my confidence, about the same way as using the super extended gfs based on todays model physics , and trying to extend that out a month and forecast any single tropical cyclone development with it. I would and most people like me would laugh at that for the fact that no model can even forecast the large scale worth a bucket of spit out more then 2 weeks.

 

[Si modo]

That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.

The fact that you think some sort of consensus is relevant to the science rules you out as any significant contributor in the debate.

You are soiling science and thus you are an enemy of science.

LOLOLOL....the fact that you think that scientific consensus has no relevance to science or to public policy making indicates that you are scientifically illiterate and ignorant about the real world. It is you nutjob denier cultists who are enemies of science.

In the real world, this is how it works:


....

LMAO! I am "scientifically illiterate"!

Too funny.

Anyway, I'll call your wiki link and raise it.

Science is not decided by consensus. Don't believe me, though. Believe Karl Popper who established the logic of scientific discovery. No where is consensus any part of the logic of scientific discovery.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's a very pertinent scientific study of the actual gauge of scientific knowledge and 'consensus' which is the papers that get published in the reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the Earth’s surface.

Naomi Oreskes
VOL 306 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
3 DECEMBER 2004
Published by AAAS

Policy-makers and the media, particular-ly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce green-house gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then–EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertis bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 ).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

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. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press,Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See AAAS ATLAS OF POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we’re not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M.T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.


The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.

© 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Old Rocks]

I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.

But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.

What is the basis of your doubt, Mathew?

 

[westwall]

I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.

But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.

What is the basis of your doubt, Mathew?

Probably the lack of any credible science to back up the claims. Other than that I don't see a problem.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.

But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.

What is the basis of your doubt, Mathew?

Obama is killing our space program at a time when we're finding hundreds of planets around almost every star. It is one big joke what he is doing to our space program. Also co2 as a green house is a joke. Don't point to Venus for your answers because its Atmosphere is 97 percent co2 and is 20 million miles closer to the sun then earth. Far more solar input. No oceans either like we on earth to have to trap it and to keep our planet at a constant temperature.

I just feel that we humans need a nice hot prod to get back into the exploring mood.