Is it possible that respected scientific organizations may be wrong about AGW?

Question

Has a broad consensus ever been proved wrong in recent history?

Is the AGW theory 100%, 90%, 80%, etc. correct?

How much would you wager on it? Your retirement, Children's educations, etc.

Answer 1

Never happen.... they said the earth was flat, man could never break the sound barrier (1940's), the sun traveled around the earth, man's blood would boil if he traveled faster than 20 MPH (1820's), man would never achieve powered flight (1900), an ice age is coming(1970's) .... naw science groups could never be wrong.

Answer 2

Well...... the 'Earth is Flat' believers are the ancestors of today's AGW believers (aka... 'Warmers').  So.... Yes .... 'scientific' organizations may be wrong about AGW.

Edit 1:  Concerned Citizen, I don't have a problem with being environmentally responsible insofar as water and air pollution... conserving energy....etc.  What I DO have a problem with is the ramming down our throats of the 'man-did-it' global warming cause.  There is no hard, incontrovertible evidence supporting it, yet we.... the taxpayers.... are compelled to have $$Billions of our money going towards so-called clean energy..... like corn ethanol.... which as everyone now knows..... is worse than regular gasoline.

Insofar as my take on flat-earthers, it was not the conservative who held the flat-earth view..... it was the power-hungry who wanted to maintain the false notion of Earth's geography.  We now have the power-hungry wanting to force and maintain the false (unproven) notion of AGW on us.  I'll have no part of it!

Answer 3

As all major respectable scientific organizations acknowledge AGW, I personally would be extremely surprised to discover that they were all wrong and that only an extreme number of them saw the fallacy of the theory (in case it is wrong). This is however more than unlikely.

I would pretty much but my house on it as a build-up of atmospheric CO2 is more than unlikely not to increase the greenhouse effect (sorry for the "double negation careful wording").

I would also be extremely surprised to see very fast major changes in global temperatures and climate pattern (not seen since the end of the last ice age) corresponding on the timescale to our industrial revolution would be a pure coincidence. The stastics would probably give a 1% chance for it.

Answer 4

Of course!

The whole premise of science is based on the idea that we don't know anything so we better keep looking.

The whole premise of good governance is to accept that maybe we don't know everything but we had better act on what we know today otherwise we don't do anything!

So: For now, AGW is generally accepted which means humans are really f**ing up the planet. Good governance demands that we act to stop this.

In the meantime, good science demands that they do further study and research to see what else we can do.

Consensus is not so important; risk-benefit analyses are.

If the risk was that my lawn wouldn't be very green, I wouldn't be putting a lot of money on it.

If there is a (examples only) 60% chance that life is going to be much more difficult for 80% of the world's population and/or a 5% chance of mass extinctions, well, h*ll, I'm willing to put my retirement on it because having a retirement while all around me dies seems a pretty sad thing to aim for...

Answer 5

It is limiting the problem by calling it Global Warming. Climate change is the whole picture. Again, perhaps this is a cycle the Earth goes through every couple of thousand years, but abuse of anything makes it weak and sickly, and for sure the Earth is sick.

We can make a difference.  

Answer 6

Of course it's possible.  It's also possible that the universe will collapse tomorrow.  Anything is possible.

The question is how likely is it that virtually all climate scientists are wrong about their conclusions regarding the causes of climate change.  Not bloody likely.

How much I would wager depends on what we're wagering on.  If we're betting on whether the consensus that humans are the primary cause of the warming over the past 30 years is right, I'd bet pretty much everything I have on it.  That's how sound the science is.  As for the wager that the results will be catastrophic if we continue in a business-as-usual dependence on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions scenario, I'd bet a whole lot on that too.

Answer 7

Back in the 60's they were talking global cooling. I'm sorry but I'm not jumping on the global warming bandwagon, when 1. People like Al Gore won't debate anybody about it, 2. He has stock in and is on the board of companies that will profit from global warming, and 3. Scientists who disagree with the REASONS for it (I do believe there is physical evidence) are shouted down and dismissed. It could just be a cyclical thing the earth experiences, or it could be something on a galactic scale. Both sides need to be heard though before I'm forced to buy a $5 light bulb and drive a car the size of a beach ball!

Answer 8

The scientific consensus is there is a 90% chance that AGW is occurring.  I can't think of any scientific theory that has been proven wrong.  Most are on target and only get better as more information is collected and the theory refined.

First, most people have no idea what a theory is.  It is used many ways and mostly as a term for "guess."  This is not the meaning for scientists. Theories are  scientific models (models describe, explain or predict using mathematical relationships) that have been developed over time from observing natural phenomenon and determining what factors are important for explaining and understanding the phenomenon.  They build on what is known in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics (social sciences too) and can be used to make predictions about the future.  They are built based of the results of extensive testing of hypothesis, evidence and basic science skills.  They are reviewed, duplicated, refined and often parts are picked apart by other scientist that have expertise in the field.

We are already wagering everything you have listed, like it or not.  We are sure to loose if we ignore the science and incorrectly assume that no action is required.  Loosing means life on Earth gets a more difficult for future generations. The danger is we are not doing anything to reduce the odds of adverse impacts, so they will likely be greater than if we take actions to reduce them.

The discussion needs to be about what level of response is appropriate to minimize the effect on people now and in the future.  This stuff often argued about on YA is actually very old - 1992-1995 is basically when the scientific community discussed this  and decided the risk was in doing nothing (look for the reports on Global Climate Change at the US National Academy of Sciences).   Here is a link to some of them:  

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/co...

Just read some of it and you'll get the idea that most scientist have already moved on.  I knew about 25-30 back in the 180s working on the ecology and economics part of this.  They Got bored and switched to other stuff 10 years ago feeling enough of the question was answered to make a rational decision.  Most are working on water or air pollution issues, urban sprawl, decision support systems, Malaria, risk assessments, homeland security stuff.  Some have retired.

Answer 9

It is of course possible for respected scientific organizations to be wrong about AGW, although I think it is a lot more likely that Y.A. deniers and right-wing talk show hosts will be the ones proved wrong. IPCC said greater than 90%, and that seems pretty reasonable, perhaps low.

You ask me to wager my retirement on it, but I don't think that is fair. For people to wager things which are very important (like their retirement, or equity in their house) they need to have extremely high odds, certainly much higher than 90%.  That is just the psychology of game theory.

What you should be asking is whether we would wager 25 or 50 cents a gallon on it being true.  Once phrased in those terms I think LOTS of people would bet on it, and that is an approximate cost of prevention. I think it is more reasonable to ask people to bet their retirement on it being wrong, since it will be much more costly to repair than to prevent.

James E.: I don't think you really believe those 5% odds you're quoting.  If you do, I'll gladly put up my $100 against your $2000 that scientists will still believe in the truth of global warming in ten years. We can even bet on temperatures if you like.

Answer 10

BB, the people who believed the Earth is flat were the conservative religious extremists who refused to believe any of the findings of the scientists and called them heretics.  The global warming deniers are the ones who are most like them.

I find it very interesting that many of the people who accept AGW have links to numerous scientific articles to back them up, but the deniers generally respond on the basis of pure emotion.  At most, they post a link to a YouTube video or some radical political web site.  Where is the science to back up your point of view?  Is it worth betting your future, and perhaps the future of all life on the planet, on pure emotion and no scientific basis?

The most common misconception is that "going green" will cost more, but in fact many of the things we can all do to save energy and fossil fuels will cost us less.  Turning off unused electrical devices, carpooling, telecommuting, mass transportation, and adjusting thermostats to use less air conditioning or heat all save money.  Sadly, there are many people who want to keep spending more out of sheer contrariness.  They're only proving the falsehood of their own claims that it's all financially motivated.

Answer 11

Probably closer to 5% chance of being correct in 10 years. Most of those now touting it will be telling everybody else they were really against it. Just like trying to find some one who will admit they even knew somebody that voted for Jimmy Carter.

Answer 12

Birdog wrote

"Has a broad consensus ever been proved wrong in recent history?"

And Bubba wrote

"I can't think of any scientific theory that has been proven wrong. Most are on target and only get better as more information is collected and the theory refined."

Most scientific theories are not proven "wrong", but are altered as new information comes out. But there are some scientific theories that have in fact been proven wrong, and one of the more widely known is geosyncline theory. Replaced by plate tectonics in the 50s and 60s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tecto...

There are other recent examples. Here are a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

N wrote

"I would also be extremely surprised to see very fast major changes in global temperatures and climate pattern (not seen since the end of the last ice age) corresponding on the timescale to our industrial revolution would be a pure coincidence. "

Any evidence for this? No, because it isn't true. The rate of warming in the past 100 years is not unprecedented in our interglacial.

"Is it possible that respected scientific organizations may be wrong about AGW?"

It is possible, but why take that chance? Sure there are many uncertainties in our climate system, but the scientists studying it say we need to do something. Do all of the scientists agree completely? No. Do I agree with AGW theory 100%? Not even close, but we need to heed the thousands of scientists who are telling us that we need to act.

Answer 13

Not only possible but very very likely!

Answer 14

the scientific consensus is always right until a better theory comes along. They used to think god made the earth, it was flat, the sun revolved around it etc...thanks to 1 skeptic these views were all changed, though at the time they were shot down as being fools!

This demonstrates how scientists own pride often gets in the way of there better judgement.

Even Einstein came up with the theory of Ether which scientists accepted at the time, he later said it was the greatest mistake of his life and was incredibly ashamed about it. In trying to come up with a equation for everything he couldnt make it fit so he invented something to make his theory work. Even the best scientists steer the truth to suit their needs.

In 1975 the concensus was global cooling (many of these scientists are now promotors of AGW). At the time a scientist suggest producing more co2 could possibly stop the cooling, he was shot down as being a fool for the fantasy that co2 could cause warming. Now look at what they are saying!

Fact is the scientific concensus is often wrong. When all men think alike, no one thinks very much.

The fact is the AGW theory is still an unproven theory, and its come from a small group of scientists and presented as being "settled" and that there is a scientific "concensus". This is ridiculous and no good scientist would call a theory without any proof "settled" its merely fuel for the media.

Proof of the theory would be warming of the troposphere but after 30 years of looking they havent yet found it which disproves the theory outright so far. All the other points are regardless.

The IPCC do not report this as if no link is shown they are no longer required and they will loose their extensive funding and IPCC perks. You have to remember the IPCC is a politically driven organisation that has to justify its own existance as it was set up to find a link between manmade co2 and warming. Its formed of a small clique of extreme environmentalist scientists and climate modellers with conflicts of interest, so there judgement may well be slightly clouded!

"Dont guide the truth, let the truth guide you"

Answer 15

Sure.  It's somewhere between 1 and 5%.

Want to bet your future well being on a 20:1 longshot?  World leaders are not about to do that.

Answer 16

Sure the pre-(Keeling) era. He took a lot of ridicule before establishing CO2 base lines on a decadle scale. I venture a tentative guess of 90% depending on future emissions.

Answer 17

I think it is possible Global Warming could wrong, but I think it is important to do all we can to reduce carbon emissions for other reasons. Climate Change may or may not happen, it may or may not be affected by man, I say it is irrelevant. We are contaminating our air and we are using a finite resource at an alarming pace.

If we do none of the things that the Global Warming advocates suggest we will still suffer dire consequences in the future. We are already having a dramatic increase in Asthma and other respiratory diseases. There is increasing evidence that the chemicals we use on our bodies and our homes may contribute to certain cancers. We are polluting our water ways and many experts have dire predictions about water shortages in Europe and North America in the not to distant future.

The price of gas and other energy is increasing and it is increasing at a faster rate than in the past. At some point when there is a percieved shortage it will be come unaffordable to many.

So I see investing in alternate and renewable energy as the best way to ensure a bright future for our children and future generations.

Answer 18

By advocating doing nothing, you're willing to wager those same things, only your wager is one that can't be undone, your wager is one motivated by emotion rather than logic, and your wager isn't backed by the best available science.  

If anthropogenic CO2 is affecting climate and nothing is done, then by the time you and people like you understand something should be done about it, it will be too late and we will not only have to bear the cost of adopting a low-carbon lifestyle, but also the costs of mitigating the effects.  On the other hand, if you adopt a low-carbon lifestyle now and discover 20 or 30 years down the road there was no need, you can still go back to a carbon-rich lifestyle (plus you still have all the advanced technology you developed to get to a reduced carbon hi-tech lifestyle, and you don't have the mitigation costs).  So, you tell me, which is the true sucker's bet?

Finally, the likelihood that AGU, APS, NAS, and the IPCC have this wrong is remote at best.  If anything, the situation is more serious than these organizations are willing to admit.  In 20 years, people like you will be meekly claiming that there was no way you could have known things would be this bad.  But there was, you just didn't want to see it.  

Answer 19

<<How much would you wager on it?>>

Hmmm, what kind odds will you give me?

i'd surely consider it.

50:50 ?  you bet.

<<Has a broad consensus ever been proved wrong in recent history?>>

certainly not a consensus like there is on global warming.

NAS, NOAA, NSF, NASA, EPA, MIT, UCLA all agree. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a serious problem.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

"May 19, 2008: The National Academies have released the 2008 edition of "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change," a free booklet designed to give the public a comprehensive and easy-to-read analysis of findings and recommendations from our reports on climate change."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...  <== here's a good description.

http://www.funnyweather.org/  <== this is a more lighthearted link.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...

http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/  <== not regulated by the government.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cn...

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cn...

http://www.international.ucla.edu/articl...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/clima...

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_war...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...

<<"Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."  The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.>>

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarmin...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?... <== thanks Richard.  very good.

Answer 20

All science is tentative (open to change as new evidence comes forth), so only a scientifically illiterate person would claim scientific organizations were never wrong.  And only a scientifically illiterate person would demand absolute proof about any scientific theory.

Incremental changes in scientific theories are much more common than cases where a broad consensus is simply "proved wrong". I'm not aware of any recent theories with a similar level of consensus and duration as AGW being "proved wrong".