Consensus
August 31st, 2006 | by Craig |Whenever the topic of global warming comes up, I’m amused by the folks who say it’s a “scientific consensus.”
My reply is, “So what?”
Consider the recent demotion of Pluto from planethood. Since Clyde Tombaugh discovered it, scientific consensus was that it was a planet. Now it’s not. Scientific consensus also held that the earth was not only flat, but the center of the solar system and perhaps the universe.
Those who are saying that man-caused (or anthropogenic) global warming is a scientific consensus need to face an inconvenient truth. There is not as much consensus as we are led to believe, and the science behind it isn’t as transparent as it should be.
I also find it amusing that so many people who accept global warming as an article of faith are, generally speaking, some of the harshest critics of organized religion.
30 Responses to “Consensus”
By Gman on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Craig, did you happen to see ABC News’s Last Days on Earth program last night? (It was a 20/20 program.) I didn’t catch the beginning of it but the program ranked the most dangerous threats to life on earth. No. 1 was climate change. Surprise! And, of course, it was strongly tilted towards the assumption that anthropogenic global warming is an indisputable truth. In fact, ABC featured, with odd visual distortion, footage of Fox News anchors interviewing scientists and politicians who claimed that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. It seemed like the odd visual distortions were done to discredit Fox News and the people they were interviewing. The primary interviewee for the “climate change” segment of the program was none other than Al Gore! Last time I checked he’s not a scientist. They also brought on several pro-anthropogenic global warming scientists who, in so many words, proclaimed that anyone that disagreed with them had their head in the sand. They didn’t interview one single legitimate climate change scientist who disagreed with the seeming status quo. Needless to say, you would not peg this program as objective journalism, especially when you consider their crack at Fox News. It was more like “news as competition.” That’s fine, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of objectivity on such a serious issue. ABC should be embarrassed.
By ajtooley on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
They didn’t interview one single legitimate climate change scientist who disagreed with the seeming status quo.
In their view, any climate scientist who disagrees with the seeming status quo is not legitimate. Awfully circular reasoning for a bunch of guys who claim to want to discover the truth through the scientific process, no?
By Vanessa on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I don’t quite understand your disdain for those who wish to protect the environment… It’s awfully odd of you. If you do believe in god, perhaps you should consider that he/she has given us this earth to respect and care for? Shouldn’t respecting and caring for our planet be a positive thing? If you need something to complain about (more that people trying to respect and care for our planet) you might want to focus on the war. Billions of dollars is being siphoned from our tax dollars (read: YOUR money). That might be a worthwhile subject to address.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Gman–
I missed it, but I’m not surprised.
Vanessa–
Your assumptions say far more about you than they do me. Let me see if I can clarify for you: Stewardship, good. Junk science, bad.
By Mark T on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
As soon as there is scientific consensus on religion, I’ll join your church.
By Matt Singer on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Junk science? Claims to legitimate scientific dispute about warming are weak at best, but claiming that the whole field is junk science is patently absurd.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I made no such claim, Matt. I would submit to you that a “peer-review” process that is largely a circle-jerk is what’s patently absurd.
By Gman on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Matt, I’m very willing to listen to both sides of the debate. And, it seems to me that the debate is not over whether there is climate change occurring. Rather, it’s over whether it’s anthropogenic or not. I think there are two challenges before us: 1) is climate change anthropogenic; and 2) are the policy ideas to address it good ones in terms of science, practicality, and, yes, morality.
Venessa, you’re reading too much into what I said and putting words in my mouth. True, I am a Christian and I wholeheartedly embrace the stewardship mandate in Genesis. But I don’t embrace the “at least they’re doing something about it” mentality. Bad science is bad science, and bad policy is bad policy.
Anyway, the primary purpose of my post was to point out that ABC had a chance to report both sides of the debate and failed miserably. Really miserably. In fact, they had the audacity to paint “detractors” as idiots. It wasn’t reporting, it was pure propaganda. Again, no surprise. Actually, I wish they would have had John Stossel co-anchor the program.
By Rocky Smith on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I can’t remember where I saw it, but I recall hearing that global temperatures on Mars are rising recently too. I guess that must be because we sent probes there, huh? Did those rovers pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, or is it just possible the sun is going through a period of greater sunspot activity? I’m all for responsible stewardship of our lovely Earth, but it seems a bit presumtious to assume man is the main cause of the problem. I don’t suggest we don’t exascerbate the problem, but environmental whackos assume way too much. Those same people want us to stay out of the forest and are the main cause of the overload of fuel which stokes forest fires. I’d rather they build houses, pianos and baseball bats with those trees over watching them burn.
Vanessa- I suppose you would like us out of Iraq as soon as possible. I’m all for leaving when the job is done, but that time isn’t now. I remember how over 3 million died the last time you liberals got your way in having us cut and run. Are you old enough to recall the aftermath of Vietnam/Cambodia? Do you know who Pol Pot was and what he did? We owe Iraq”s people better than that. It is important to our security as well. No doubt you disagree.
By Dani on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
The really scary thing to me is that climate change scientists have been directed by other scientists to countenance no further debate on the source of global warming. That’s when you know they’ve crossed the line from real science to almost a belief system. But honestly, even religous people will often debate others on the various pros and cons, depending upon how open-minded both sides are. Regardless of the source of global warming, the fact that scientists are behaving this way is really chilling. If they’re right, and global warming is caused by man, or nature, or whatever, then the truth will out. It does not need help. By quashing dissent, it just makes people more suspicious. If there is one thing that makes me doubt the validity of global warming, it is this behavior. There are plenty of other catastrophes that can overtake us- remember Ehrlich and The Population Bomb- still waiting for that one to detonate. Yet, even those who agreed with his dire predicitons did not behave like the today’s global warming enthusiasts. So what I see is this- another bunch of people blaming Western society (America in particular) for yet another horrible thing. That’s a tired theme. So far, the naysayers have been wrong- the world did not overpopulate, the environment in Western countries is magnitudes of order better than it was forty years ago, and avian flu has not killed us all despite the fact that the West has all the money and the vaccines. I’m just burned out.
I noticed the History Channel is having a special on the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1840. Well before people could have had an impact on global warming. The world has been much warmer than it is now. Is this just a blip in the data or a real trend caused by people? I think the jury is still out- but the jury foreman wants to send in a guilty verdict. Now.
By Mark T on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
If Global Warming, real as it is, is caused by human activity, and if we fail to do anything about it due to the PR campaign (scientific Swiftboating) to sow doubt as to the findings of scientists, then the PR industry and its supporters will have committed crimes on a far larger scale than anything even imagined before.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Mighty big “if,” pard.
Say for a minute that global warming is happening and that it is man-made, not a natural cycle.
What do we do?
And I mean that seriously. Kyoto is not the answer, it’s a feel-good measure, just like raising the minimum wage. I don’t think any of the signatories have even managed to come into compliance.
Is the answer lowering everyone’s standard of living to third-world standards? Nuclear power? (That would be a good start.) Wind power? Solar? You tell me.
If the science were more solid, I could get behind it. Personally, I’m not really willing to come down on one side or another, but when one side of the debate is not being open and honest, nor brooking dissent, then I have to wonder.
I’m skeptical, but surely you would agree that skepticism is good, yes?
By Jeff on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
You can get the other side of the Wegman thing here. As far as I know, the Wegman report doesn’t actually attempt to determine what effect the problems found have on the hockey stick, which is really the important question. It’s actually already been answered: the criticisms don’t affect Mann’s conclusions.
“If the science were more solid, I could get behind it.”
Really? Like you said, scientific consensus has supported plenty of things that aren’t true. Even if the science is “solid,” they could still be wrong. It’s not like you’re trained in any of the relevant fields, so why should you trust your own judgement more than scientific consensus? You’re using the same methods, more or less. And hell, you’re only one person. Seems like quite a few people with the relevant training taking a look at the same data is going to be more likely to weed out the problems in it.
I’ve not seen any anti-global warming arguments made that haven’t been answered to my satisfaction. Considering there is pretty solid consensus (we’re not talking evolution here, but it’s still pretty good) and the arguments for it make sense to me (with the caveat that I’m hardly qualified here), I see no reason not to accept it. There are idiots with agendas supporting and opposing all sorts of scientific conclusions; I would hope that people can look beyond them and try to actually evaluate the evidence as much as possible.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Jeff–
Sorry, but citing a site where Mann is one of the principals is hardly convincing.
I posed the question to Mark, so I’ll ask you, too.
So, what do we do that doesn’t plunge the whole globe into the third world?
By Jeff on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Why not evaluate his arguments and sources, rather than lazily dismissing them because you don’t trust an author on the site?
What should we do? Nuclear power is fine with me and so is promoting alternative energy. I’m going to guess you haven’t seen Gore’s documentary, but he had a list of steps that were far from draconian and that if enough people would commit to them, we’d reduce CO2 emissions by a massive amount. Sadly, I can’t find that info online. In any case, I’m more interested in getting people to see that this is a problem. We can’t do much of anything if people don’t care.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
When Gore actually reduces his “carbon footprint,” I’ll be the second in line.
By Colby N. on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Makes me happy to see civilized conversation where people don’t agree, such a breathe of fresh air after visiting Coob’s most recent comments…
I am going to agree with Jeff insofar as he says that new energy techniques are a good start. What confuses me is the arguemnt that a problem that was gradually made by man could only be solved by rash ‘third-world-inducing’ actions. BTW Jeff (http://climatecrisis.org/ - TAKE ACTION). Some of the ideas offered both in Gore’s movie, and the corresponding book, are as simple as:
1) CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. If every family in the U.S. made the switch, we’d reduce carbon dioxide by more than 90 billion pounds! You can purchase CFLs online from the Energy Federation
2) Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has more tips for saving energy on heating and cooling.
These are hardly third world like conditions, AND these thigns save you money. It would be a very simple move for a household to make such changes…
I also support incremental changes in the fuel efficiency standards in this country. Hell, soon we won’t be able to sell our cars in China (whose stringent fuel standards will soon be passed by those in California - a state that has managed to make its own chagnes quite easily).
By Colby N. on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Gore invested in several carbon reduction techniques to offset those created by the production of his book. In fact, it was the first book to not have a carbon footprint.
At least that is a start.
I agree, the guy could do wayyy more himself, but why does everyone else have to start something good before we are willing to do it ourselves? Are we that worried about sacrifice that we won’t do it unless everyone else does too?
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Gore uses more carbon in one private jet flight than my family uses in a decade.
By Colby N. on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
I think we are talking about the ideas, not the man. Screw Gore. I am not a fan of him, but the ideas (their simplicity) that he expresses. Would advice about the dangers and ills of drinking not be worth listening to if they came from an alcoholic? Good ideas are good ideas; no matter the source.
By Craig on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply
Do you believe the drinker who says, “Drinking is bad, mmmkay,” while he chugs down a Bud Tallboy?
By David Crisp on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
The most absurd thing about this post is the implication that since scientific consensus changes over time, then all scientific conclusions are arbitrary and invalid. That’s like saying that doctors used to believe that bleeding would help the sick, now they believe that antibiotics do, and who knows what they will believe next year?
The fact is that scientific consensus usually changes because the science gets better. The debate over Pluto’s status as a planet didn’t begin last week. We discussed it an astronomy class I took 25 years ago. The facts about Pluto didn’t change; the science just got more precise.
By Mark T on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
Regarding concrete things we can do regarding GW, I can think of three things right offhand, two immediately practical: hydropower, nuclear power, and injection of carbon into the ground. All the rest - new energy efficient appliances and Prisms seem a little feel goody to me - the three I mention would have immediate significant impact.
By Craig on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
David–
Fair enough. It is even more absurd that the debate on this subject is not open and honest within the scientific community. The pro side is dogmatic and inflexible, and for those on the outside, you have to wonder why.
Mark–
As much as it pains me to say it, I couldn’t agree more. Development of hydro and nuclear power would not only make a huge dent in emissions, but would also reduce our oil dependence. Sadly, the enviros will never let either of them happen.
By Jeff on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
Craig - I don’t understand why you insist on attacking one person (Gore or Mann) rather than looking at the arguments made. It’s not like Gore is relying on his own authority. You can evaluate his arguments, check the statistics, etc.
By the way, the emissions produce by Gore’s jet have been exaggerated and he buys carbon vouchers and claims he’s carbon neutral.
Also, I don’t think anyone’s actually justified in saying the debate here isn’t sufficiently open and honest. For one, has anyone even alleged dishonesty? Lack of openness seems overstated; all Wegman said is the sharing was done grudgingly. Has anyone complained that they can’t get the data they need? I haven’t seen it, but I expect that someone making claims like you are has. Brooking dissent? McKitrick’s criticisms of Mann’s papers were published and responded to. I mean, what has Mann or anyone done to stiffle dissent? As far as I know, he and his collegues have responded to criticisms in the proper places and not attempted to stop anyone from publishing.
By Craig on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
I insist on attacking Gore because I don’t like him very much, and it’s fun.
Mann, I didn’t attack, per se. I just have a hard time believing that a site where he is one of the prinicipals is going to be objective about the whole thing.
Like I told Mark above, I’m not against making changes for the better, but really, thanks to the enviros, it’s nigh impossible to implement any changes that will make an honest to goodness impact.
Not only that, but a cursory reading of the “carbon vouchers” smells like bunkum to me.
I find it interesting Jeff that you, a religious skeptic, are so dogmatic about this.
By Gman on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
It seems to me that what fuels the debate isn’t necessarily the science, but the ramifications of the conclusions that science reaches. Craig touched on the fact that most of the policy prescriptions to combat global warming will reduce standards of living throughout the globe. Many fingers are pointing at the U.S. because we contribute the largest volume of emissions. What the finger-pointers don’t realize is that a reduction in the U.S.’s economic output — especially on a scale resulting from the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol — could be devastating to the world economy. It may seem overly pragmatic, but is the world willing to give up it’s standard of living to solve the problem. Listen, the free market works. If consumers value solving environmental problems, they will direct their resources to producers that produce products that protect the environment. That is the most efficient and effective approach to the problem. But it’s not a panacea and won’t happen overnight, hence it is dismissed as inadequate. This whole issue is a tough nut to crack. Is the world hanging in the balance? If so, maybe drastic measures have to be taken. ?????????
By Jeff on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
Why? Something like TerraPass looks pretty straightforward to me.
I find it interesting that you seem to think any acceptance of global warming and it being man made is dogmatic. I’ve told you exactly why I think it’s happening. I’ve pointed out the problems in the source you cited in your post. I think you should actually respond to my points before calling me dogmatic. Your position, which you apparently support by dismissing people you don’t like, seems much more dogmatic.
Man, the Griz theme brings back memories. Specifically, memories of your site with a Cats theme.
By Craig on Sep 1, 2006 | Reply
O RLY?
I dunno. Still sounds like bunkum to me. Tell you what, Jeff. For only $39.99/year, I’ll invest your money in Green technology. No, really, I’ll do that for you.