Where is that "scientific consensus" I keep hearing about?

Question

http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_040094539.html

Answer 1

You're right.  You know where I usually get my information on global warming science?  The Opinion section of the Traverse City Record-Eagle.  I see you do the same.  High five!

Or, you know, sometimes I slip back into reality and realize that there is an obvious scientific consensus on the subject:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

But then I remember that Rush Limbaugh is on!  Did you know that McCain is really a liberal spy infiltrating the Republican Party, and the global warming hoax was his invention, and Al Gore is just trying to take credit for it like he did with inventing the internet?  I read that in the Traverse City Record-Eagle Opinion section yesterday, then Rush said the same thing this morning!  Hmm, you don't think he's a plaigiarist, do you?  Nah, not Rush!

Answer 2

There really is no scientific consensus". It is a media created myth. It really is sad for the state of science that people believe it. Here is a great list of credible scientists and links to their work, that disagree on the "scientific consensus". The media loves to say the "Debate is over". Hardly!

It is hard to believe that anyone would tell you that man made c02 is the only cause of GW. The idea that there is a single cause for climate change is not just unscientific it is absurd!

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

Answer 3

Scientific papers on AGW published between 2004 and 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte

What especially worries me is that if anyone dares to question the dogma of the global warming doomsters who repeatedly tell us that C not only stands for carbon but for climate catastrophe, we are immediately vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.

I am quite happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on bigotry.

I don’t like being called a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. There are no facts linking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming there are only predictions based on complex computer models.

Prof David Bellamy

Answer 4

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

i think ill take science over the record eagle any day.

Answer 5

"About the author: Jim Fuscaldo of Cedar is a retired scientist... with a Bachelor of Science in pharmacy from Drake University"

Oh, you score a point.  One pharmacist doesn't understand the science.  The consensus is practically shattered.

By the way, look up the definition of consensus.  It does not mean total agreement, so a few folks who disagree does not affect consensus.  The people who attack "consensus" are counting on you noto understand the definition.  

The fact that they attack the consensus so vehemently reveals the importance of it.

Answer 6

Your cite has no evidence of any lack of consensus.  It's just one guy mouthing off.

This is the truth.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 7

There is non:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10...