Thoughts on "Scientific Consensus."

[JohnStOnge]

Here, as in the world at large, a lot of weight is put upon the idea that there is a "consensus" for the view that human activity is the primary reason for a perceived warming trend. People appear to think that having substantial majority of scientists in a field believe something means that the belief has to be correct.

But that's a false premise. History is full of examples of cases in which "maverick" scientists who were in a small minority were either proven to be correct or came to be believed to have been correct. A discussion of that can be seen at Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated . I don't know much about the author, but I think that if you follow up on what he wrote you'll find it to be correct in terms of history.

A quote:

"As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent, and only the lone voice of the 'fringe' scientist is telling the truth.

Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Todays science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide the huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression directed at the following researchers by colleague."

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that people of today display something akin to a "scientist worship." It's as though they don't think human beings have biases when they become recognized as "scientists."

I found that web page while looking for articles on Barry Marshall. Dr. Marshall was the first to think that bacteria could cause stomach disease. His belief was ridculed at first but was eventually accepted (see Barry Marshall Biography -- Academy of Achievement ).

Some will say that's an example of science correcting itself; and it is. But there's a key difference between the situation Dr. Marshall was in and the situation those who deviate from the "global warming" consensus are in. Dr. Marshall's beliefs could be tested through controlled experimentation; and controlled experimentation eventually proved him to be correct. A quote from the last link I posted:

"When he was invited to attend a medical conference in Dallas, Texas in 1985, he repeated his assertions of the bacterial cause of gastric illness and challenged the audience of medical scientists to prove him wrong. Before long, experiments in the United States and elsewhere, many designed to refute his hypothesis, were in fact confirming it."


That's the problem with the humankind-as-cause global warming thing. No experiment can be designed to test it. Instead, it's all based on what models have to say about what is thought about what would happen if only "natural" factors were involved vs. what would happen if human activity is included.

 

[Old Rocks]

John, what bullshit. Yes, there is an experiment that can prove the theory of AGW, and we are performing it right now. You are not going to like the results.

 

[JohnStOnge]

John, what bullshit. Yes, there is an experiment that can prove the theory of AGW, and we are performing it right now. You are not going to like the results.

There is no experiment in this case because, whatever happens, there will be no opportunity to compare it to another actual scenario.

Otherwise, do you disagree with the assertion that there have been a number of times in history when the "scientific consensus" on a particular issue at a particular time turned out to be either proven to be wrong or later considered to be wrong?

 

[alan1]

John, what bullshit. Yes, there is an experiment that can prove the theory of AGW, and we are performing it right now. You are not going to like the results.

There is no experiment in this case because, whatever happens, there will be no opportunity to compare it to another actual scenario.

Otherwise, do you disagree with the assertion that there have been a number of times in history when the "scientific consensus" on a particular issue at a particular time turned out to be either proven to be wrong or later considered to be wrong?

hey John, you are being politically incorrect as defined by the current acceptable media standards, therefore, you are a dick.

 

[Old Rocks]

There have been many times that the consensus was wrong. My favorite is that of the Bretz Floods. But Bretz had the evidence all in his favor. In this case, all the evidence, from Physics to Geology, says that AGW is real.

 

[Chris]

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

That was proved experimentally in 1859.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

[RetiredGySgt]

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

That was proved experimentally in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

As CO2 increases in the atmosphere it has a diminishing effect on the retention of heat. In other words after a certain point more does not increase the potential for heat as much as the previous amounts did. But hey who cares about actual science when we are being politically correct.

There is also a growing body of Scientists willing to speak out about the hoax of "man made" global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

That was proved experimentally in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

As CO2 increases in the atmosphere it has a diminishing effect on the retention of heat. In other words after a certain point more does not increase the potential for heat as much as the previous amounts did. But hey who cares about actual science when we are being politically correct.

There is also a growing body of Scientists willing to speak out about the hoax of "man made" global warming.

Site your sources for the diminishing effect. The American Institute of Physics states otherwise;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Really? And who might they be? And which scientific societies have changed their stand on AGW? Which National Academies of Science? And which major university?

 

[Chris]

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

That was proved experimentally in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

As CO2 increases in the atmosphere it has a diminishing effect on the retention of heat. In other words after a certain point more does not increase the potential for heat as much as the previous amounts did. But hey who cares about actual science when we are being politically correct.

There is also a growing body of Scientists willing to speak out about the hoax of "man made" global warming.

Why don't you provide a link to the "actual science?"

 

[JohnStOnge]

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

That was proved experimentally in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

As far as I can tell, what Tyndall proved experimentally is that certain gases absorb heat. That is not the same as proving that the estimated increases in "greenhouse gases" attributable to human activity account for the estimated increase in Earth temperatures. It is not a situation where there was a rock and a "blanket" of gases was added to it. It is a situation in which a "living" planet was already covered by a "blanket" of gases and characterized by all kinds of processes scientists may or may not fully understand or even recognize.

What's being debated isn't whether or not gases like CO2 and methane absorb heat. What's being debated is whether or not an humankind emitting gases like CO2 and methane of amounts X1 and X2 will result in a global temperature rise of Y (with some bound of error around the estimate). No experiment has been conducted, nor can any experiment be conducted, to validate the models being used to do that. Again, even the IPCC has stated that experiments with the Earth's climate system that are impossible to conduct would be necessary to accomplish what it calls "unequivocal attribution."

Back to the point, though: The point is that it's fallacy to assume a view has to be true because it's the "consensus" view among scientists in a field. I think it's especially important to bear that in mind when you're dealing with a situation in which controlled experiments cannot be employed to validate contentions by either side of the debate.

 

[Red Dawn]

Here, as in the world at large, a lot of weight is put upon the idea that there is a "consensus" for the view that human activity is the primary reason for a perceived warming trend. People appear to think that having substantial majority of scientists in a field believe something means that the belief has to be correct.

But that's a false premise. History is full of examples of cases in which "maverick" scientists who were in a small minority were either proven to be correct or came to be believed to have been correct. A discussion of that can be seen at Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated . I don't know much about the author, but I think that if you follow up on what he wrote you'll find it to be correct in terms of history.

A quote:

"As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent, and only the lone voice of the 'fringe' scientist is telling the truth.

Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Todays science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide the huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression directed at the following researchers by colleague."

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that people of today display something akin to a "scientist worship." It's as though they don't think human beings have biases when they become recognized as "scientists."

I found that web page while looking for articles on Barry Marshall. Dr. Marshall was the first to think that bacteria could cause stomach disease. His belief was ridculed at first but was eventually accepted (see Barry Marshall Biography -- Academy of Achievement ).

Some will say that's an example of science correcting itself; and it is. But there's a key difference between the situation Dr. Marshall was in and the situation those who deviate from the "global warming" consensus are in. Dr. Marshall's beliefs could be tested through controlled experimentation; and controlled experimentation eventually proved him to be correct. A quote from the last link I posted:

"When he was invited to attend a medical conference in Dallas, Texas in 1985, he repeated his assertions of the bacterial cause of gastric illness and challenged the audience of medical scientists to prove him wrong. Before long, experiments in the United States and elsewhere, many designed to refute his hypothesis, were in fact confirming it."


That's the problem with the huankind-as-cause global warming thing. No experiment can be designed to test it. Instea md, it's all based on what models have to say about what is thought about what would happen if only "natural" factors were involved vs. what would happen if human activity is included.

you know, those of us who have followed this for years clearly remember that about ten years ago the flat earthers were denying that globabl warming was happening at all. And they always said we needed to "study it more" until there was clear consensus, or widespread clear conclusions on the matter.

Well, its been studied more since those days. And there is a widespread and nearly universal conclusion in the expert scientific community.

but, now you've changed your position again. You want absolute, bullet proof, 100% monolithic consensus and absolute proof.

Science doesn't work that way. Scientists are still debating plate tectonics and gravity. There still no 100% consensus on the causes and originis of those natural phenomena.

You're setting up a straw man. Science can't ever prove beyond a shadow of any doubt, anything in nature.

This is a public policy question. You make public policy on the basis of the best availalbe, credible information. And the policies you choose to implement, or not implement, are comenserute with the risk of not taking action. The level of risk to humans is beyond the scope of debating the environmental policies with regard to the spotted owl.

The time for flat earth denialism is over. Is it possible that the science is all wrong on global warming? Yes, anything is possible. Science can't ever give you a 100% bullet proof answer. That's no how science works.


The fact that flat earthers have been constantly changing their positions for the last 20 years, and continue to move the goal posts for what constitutes the level at which we take action means one thing: the flat earthers are dishonest, and are acting on emotion. They have been so emotionally attached to denying climate science, and they've been trained like monkeys to view this through a political prism, that to them it becomes a matter of not admitting the "liberals" were right. This isn't about liberals being right. Science is neither liberal nor conservative.

I don't understand why this is such a political issue for flat eathers. Its not going to be embarrasing for you to admit "liberals were right". This isn't an election, or a football game. Your ego isn't going to be crushed to admit that for 20 years you've been pu shing the wrong side of the issue.

As for consensus, its obvious you're being disingenuous and emotional. If eleven out of 12 medical doctors told you that you had cancer, you would not be sitting around debating the merits of "consensus". You're ass would be reacting as rapidly as possible to mitigate the potentia; threat to your health.

 

[PoliticalChic]

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

That was proved experimentally in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

As far as I can tell, what Tyndall proved experimentally is that certain gases absorb heat. That is not the same as proving that the estimated increases in "greenhouse gases" attributable to human activity account for the estimated increase in Earth temperatures. It is not a situation where there was a rock and a "blanket" of gases was added to it. It is a situation in which a "living" planet was already covered by a "blanket" of gases and characterized by all kinds of processes scientists may or may not fully understand or even recognize.

What's being debated isn't whether or not gases like CO2 and methane absorb heat. What's being debated is whether or not an humankind emitting gases like CO2 and methane of amounts X1 and X2 will result in a global temperature rise of Y (with some bound of error around the estimate). No experiment has been conducted, nor can any experiment be conducted, to validate the models being used to do that. Again, even the IPCC has stated that experiments with the Earth's climate system that are impossible to conduct would be necessary to accomplish what it calls "unequivocal attribution."

Back to the point, though: The point is that it's fallacy to assume a view has to be true because it's the "consensus" view among scientists in a field. I think it's especially important to bear that in mind when you're dealing with a situation in which controlled experiments cannot be employed to validate contentions by either side of the debate.

Bravo for the idea of this thread, but it's useless to post logical and legitimate ideas when the global-warming-witch-hunters will babble on about deniers, and flat earthers. At some point they will simply walk away whistlling with hands deep in their pockets, pretending that they were never emotionally wed to the silly concept.

Just put them in the corner and water twice a day.

Remember:
Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.
Thomas Huxley

 

[JohnStOnge]

Science doesn't work that way. Scientists are still debating plate tectonics and gravity. There still no 100% consensus on the causes and originis of those natural phenomena.

You're setting up a straw man. Science can't ever prove beyond a shadow of any doubt, anything in nature. .

Scientists are far more certain about the effects of gravity than they are about how the climate will change depending on human activity. And the statement "Science can't ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt," while used often in the context of discussions like this, is false.

For example: Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that water has gaseous, liquid, and solid forms. Also, science has proven that pure or at least close to pure water will assume solid form at very cold temperatures and that it will assume gaseous form at very hot temperatures. You can do controlled experiment after controlled experiment after controlled experiment on those two assertions and the predicted result will unambiguously occur every time. It's something that can be demonstrated through reproducible experimentation. And there are many, many things like that. In fact, many aspects of gravitational theory are like that. Reproducible controlled experiments can be conducted where the motions of objects are predicted based on gravitational theory and the predictions are very precisely correct. I know you're not the only one who has mentioned gravitational theory in the way you mentioned it, but I think it's misleading. Theories about what's going to happen to the Earth if X is done or not with greenhouse gases are not NEARLY as firmly established as theories about how gravity acts matter are. Not even in the same universe as far as certainty and experimental support goes.

 

[Old Rocks]

And physics has firmly established the absorbtion spectra of CO2. And the fact that we have had rapid increases in CO2 and CH4 in the past, and the result, in every case, was rapid warming. That the initial cause was trapp volcanics in no way changes the result, simply because now the cause is the activities of man.

Like your stand on evolution, your talking points reveal a deep misunderstanding of how science is done, and how conclusions are reached.

 

[Red Dawn]

Science doesn't work that way. Scientists are still debating plate tectonics and gravity. There still no 100% consensus on the causes and originis of those natural phenomena.

You're setting up a straw man. Science can't ever prove beyond a shadow of any doubt, anything in nature. .

Scientists are far more certain about the effects of gravity than they are about how the climate will change depending on human activity. And the statement "Science can't ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt," while used often in the context of discussions like this, is false.

For example: Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that water has gaseous, liquid, and solid forms. Also, science has proven that pure or at least close to pure water will assume solid form at very cold temperatures and that it will assume gaseous form at very hot temperatures. You can do controlled experiment after controlled experiment after controlled experiment on those two assertions and the predicted result will unambiguously occur every time. It's something that can be demonstrated through reproducible experimentation. And there are many, many things like that. In fact, many aspects of gravitational theory are like that. Reproducible controlled experiments can be conducted where the motions of objects are predicted based on gravitational theory and the predictions are very precisely correct. I know you're not the only one who has mentioned gravitational theory in the way you mentioned it, but I think it's misleading. Theories about what's going to happen to the Earth if X is done or not with greenhouse gases are not NEARLY as firmly established as theories about how gravity acts matter are. Not even in the same universe as far as certainty and experimental support goes.

like old rocks said, you really don't understand science.

Your confusing observation, with scientific interpretation and conclusion. Very bad form, and a complete misinterpretation of what science does.
,
Yes, we can observe the effects of gravity quite readily. No one really knows for certain, what exactly the nature and causation of gravity is. That's a debate that's been going on for 400 years. The most recent consensus is that mass causes a warping of space-time.


Global warming is an observable phenonmena, just like gravity. There is zero doubt that we are witnessing a warming trend. The overwhelming scientific consesus, after 30 years of massive study, is that humans are accelerating it and contributing to it.


Nearly every right wing talking point in this forum has beein debunked. Including the recent fabrication that sea ice is "the same" it was in 1979.

Aren't you unconfortable supporting a postion that has been routinely shown to be based on fabrications and falsehoods?

 

[JohnStOnge]

And physics has firmly established the absorbtion spectra of CO2. And the fact that we have had rapid increases in CO2 and CH4 in the past, and the result, in every case, was rapid warming. That the initial cause was trapp volcanics in no way changes the result, simply because now the cause is the activities of man.

Like your stand on evolution, your talking points reveal a deep misunderstanding of how science is done, and how conclusions are reached.

Well, you can think that if you want. But I think what you're referencing when you mention rapid increases of CO2 and CH4 in the past being associated with rapid warming...to the extent that it was associated... is just that; association. Association infers cause and effect only in the context of a controlled experiment. Before I post a graphic, let me mention this again: The IPCC has itself conceded that unequivocal "attribution" would require controlled experimentation that is not possible.

Now the graphic. It's what's believed about CO2 and temperature levels over the last 600 million years. To me, even in terms of association, it kind of calls into question the idea of being able to say that if CO2 rises temperature must rise. Look at the Devonian and Jurassic periods in particular.

 

[Chris]

This isn't about the past.

It's about the present.

 

[michiganFats]

Here it is in a nutshell. "Consensus" and "correct" are not synonyms. If most people reach a consensus that 2+2=5, they are not correct.

 

[Old Rocks]

And physics has firmly established the absorbtion spectra of CO2. And the fact that we have had rapid increases in CO2 and CH4 in the past, and the result, in every case, was rapid warming. That the initial cause was trapp volcanics in no way changes the result, simply because now the cause is the activities of man.

Like your stand on evolution, your talking points reveal a deep misunderstanding of how science is done, and how conclusions are reached.

Well, you can think that if you want. But I think what you're referencing when you mention rapid increases of CO2 and CH4 in the past being associated with rapid warming...to the extent that it was associated... is just that; association. Association infers cause and effect only in the context of a controlled experiment. Before I post a graphic, let me mention this again: The IPCC has itself conceded that unequivocal "attribution" would require controlled experimentation that is not possible.

Now the graphic. It's what's believed about CO2 and temperature levels over the last 600 million years. To me, even in terms of association, it kind of calls into question the idea of being able to say that if CO2 rises temperature must rise. Look at the Devonian and Jurassic periods in particular.

That graphic is far too course, and fails to show the very rapid decline in the Ordivician that led to a glacial period at that time.
Appalachian Mountains, Carbon Dioxide Caused Long-Ago Global Cooling

 

[Old Rocks]

More on the same subject;

Location, Location, Location | Global Warming | DISCOVER Magazine