Log In | Register
There's no doubt that the term is useful. A consensus view in any field of science represents humanity's best guess as to what's going on. The guess might well be wrong, but what else is there to go on? It's not as though there are answers in the back of the book to look at. People often say that science isn't a democracy; scientific questions aren't decided by majority rule. Well, then, what are they decided by? Experiments and observations, surely. But who runs the experiments and makes the observations? Who interprets the outcome? Who double-checks them? It is a social process.
…
n an attempt to emulate this natural process, Goettmann and colleagues Arne Thomas and Markus Antonietti developed their own nitrogen-based catalyst that can produce carbamates. The graphite-like compound is made from flat layers of carbon and nitrogen atoms arranged in hexagons.
…
So while I think there's a role for mentioning scientific consensus, it should be used very sparingly. Telling people that there is a consensus cannot substitute for explaining why there is a consensus. As much as climate scientists may be wearying of debate, they need to press onward and treat each question as though it was the first time they had ever heard it.
Please Stop Talking About the Global Warming Consensus
Article Source: Sciam- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (27)
If you haven't read George Musser's answers to global warming skeptics, then it is a worthwhile series of posts.
- 5 votes
#1 - Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:40 PM EDTMy article written in response to a speech by Michael Crichton also dealt with consensus of science and why it is important. For anyone to lazy to click the link:
Crichton describes the invoking of consensus as "the first refuge of scoundrels" (patriotism is the last, so I have to wonder where to scoundrels go in between?). He states that "the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus." Of that, I have no disagreement, but it is actually a very rare thing that a scientist would defend their work or conclusions based on consensus. However, in advising policy, consensus becomes not only involved but very important. Given Mr. Crichton's training as a physician, let us consider a small example to demonstrate the difference. If you are given grave medical advice, you might seek a second opinion. If it differs from the first, you might also seek a third to try and find some idea of which was correct. Why? Because you want to know what the consensus is, not just the worst. Now, if two out of the three physicians agreed on your grave prognosis, you'd be more inclined to act on it than if it were just one of them. Again, consensus to help shape policy. Any one of the doctors may have used sound procedure and judgment to determine differing opinions. However, varying conclusions require the effected person (or people) to make a decision on what to do. That is policy versus science on a very small level. Crichton later pleads for a way to seperate the two, which sounds great save for one thing: who will advise policy if not the experts in their field? Ah, well, that appears to be where untrained politicians and science fiction authors come in (which is really for another article, since it is outside of the scope of this lecture and my response).Allow me to jump the gun here, since I'm on the subject of scientific consensus, and get to how it applies to global warming as that is the ultimate topic. I agree with the idea that science facts are not a democracy. For an idea to be right, it only need be hypothesized by one person (or few people). On the other hand, as right ideas become more mainstream and accepted, a consensus naturally forms. At some point, those ideas are so readily accepted as be actionable, or essentially fact. This is where scientific consensus comes into play and why it does matter when it comes to setting policy, as I tried to demonstrate with the three doctor delimma above. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes wrote a paper titled "Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" in which she surveyed nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change. From that article (emphasis mine):
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.
Now, while we all agree that for an idea to be right, it doesn't need consensus. But if the idea was wrong, wouldn't at least one out of nearly 1,000 papers hope to provide some credible, alternate theory as to the observed phenomena? If all three doctors had told you the same prognosis, wouldn't you be crazy not to act on it?
Crichton gives various examples of what he feels are bad consensus judgments, none of which I want to discuss in depth other than to say this: since when was science described as anything other than a slow process with which skepticism was required to be overcome through observations and reproducible evidence? Of course it often begins with one person (or few people) with a new hypothesis and then they must, over time, show their hypothesis to be correct. That is the scientific method (and we'll see that it applies to global warming more than you or Mr. Crichton may have realized). Now, as Crichton goes on, he makes it out that if anymore than a single individual holds a scientific notion to be true then we should all discount it. We should be skeptical of new, untested hypothesis until they are shown to be more accurate than previous ones. But more accurate than what?
All science being used to provide guidance to policy is a consensus... It makes sense to make policy based on what we currently think is the best explanation for an observed event.
- 5 votes
#2 - Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:53 PM EDT'Mars is Melting'
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
'Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I for the life of me still cant figure out why people think that things such as the sun, and the earth are static. They change constantly, day in day out, you cant stop mother nature.
And either way, making a tax to global warming as per the kyoto accord, is completely senseless.
Madmax anyone?
- 6 votes
#3 - Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:13 AM EDTUmmm....
Two things though... there is never global warming with out the sun (even normal warming)....
The thicker the blanket of CO2 in the earths atmosphere, the more heat from the sun that gets trapped thus warming the globe...
So, the Sun MIGHT be responsible for exacerbating the warming, but it is not the CAUSE of the warming.
- 3 votes
So, you're saying that the sun is static and that the number of fusion reactions in its core could not increase and that it could not increase in brightness?
- 3 votes
#4 - Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:27 AM EDTDoh,
Clicked post before I got a chance to link this :)
'Brightening Sun is Warming Earth'
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html
There is a better explanation for global warming than air pollution, two Harvard researchers say: the Sun is increasing in brightness and radiance.
"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).
....
"The best models of global warming call for a very slow temperature rise of less than two degrees in the next 100 years,"
...
Baliunas quickly points out that the satellite measurements apply to only one cycle, and evidence exists that the estimated jump in brightness over several previous cycles was almost four times as much -- 0.5 percent.
...
But hey, what the hell do people at harvard know?
- 3 votes
No... I am saying that for a sustained temperature on the earth that lasts beyond the cover of night into the next day we need a layer of CO2 to retain radiant heat released form the absorption of solar energy on the earth. The sun's output increases and decreases with time, but that is not what is causing a SUSTAINED increase in the temperature of the earth. More CO2 in the air means more radiant heat trapped... alone, that is a problem even with out solar output variance... What happens if you add MORE solar energy to get absorbed by the earth and radiated out at night but have more CO2 in the air? You end up with EVEN MORE heat retained on the earth than had the sun not been increasing its output.
- 2 votes
Senseless, you can really just stop right there. That "the sun did it" stuff really just doesn't fly around here. We're read the scant evidence and it's been completely dismissed by the body of scientists at large (here's a great place to get more information on the topic, from climate scientists). You're cherry picking data at best and the link to National Geographic clearly states most do not agree. And falling back on the some sort of cosmic dynamics argument, or whatever you wish to call it, is nothing more than a shell-game. You either do not understand or ignore climate science. That much is clear. I've answered most of the Mars myths, etc. in my article on climate science myths in response to Neil Boortz.
Finally, you're attempt to appeal to the authority offered by the brand-name of Harvard University is poor. Havard didn't make do that research, one of it's researchers did. Many others, at Harvard and elsewhere, disagree. If you're going to play the "authority" game, you've already lost.
Jason,
The authority game is what has been used to 'prove' MAN-MADE global warming.. There are many people who disagree. But there is no room for disagreement..
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
I suspect that global warming denial will soon be on par with holocaust denial. Go ahead and take me to the goulag. Scientists will lose grants and funding if they start saying there are other explanations for man-made global warming.
I am in no disagreement that there is climate change, it's visible in almost everyone's daily grind. But to say that it is caused by co2 gases in my mind is absurd. Everyone knows that plants eat co2 gases and produce o2. I have a bonzai tree here on my desk, they arent suppose to get much bigger than 1' tall and this one has grown 1' in the past 2 weeks alone! It'll be too big to fit on my desk pretty soon. All from the fact that it sits over my ashtray. I've never quite seen anything like it. (Except for when I used co2 generators for my 'extracurricular' growing activities).
Even if we do curb 'man-made' global warming. There was a gas volcano eruption not too far from where I live here in the philippines this year. It wasn't on the scale of Mt. Pinatubo or Mt. St. Helen, but it did release a large volume of gas (no idea how much). I was taught in 6th grade that gas volcanoes release on average 5-10x the amount of co2 gases as the entire world does in a single year (they used this argument to allow us to somewhat visualize in our heads the magnitude of a volcanic eruption). I guess we're all SOL now eh?
I wonder how much co2 gas was released the last time that yellowstone went off..??
Mars Myths? So you're saying that NASA is not a reputable source to confirm the recession of martial polar ice caps? I'm glad to see that you've 'answered' them. Who are you again?
Who is Neil Boortz? I don't care enough to look it up myself.
The whole cosmic ray thing seems kind of shady to me. I've only heard a little about it, but it doesn't make any sense.
I use reasoning and logical progression in the pursuit of finding my answers. I'll have to admit, I haven't done much research on global warming itself. But now that global warming has replaced 9/11 as a reason to get out of bed in the morning. I shall do my best to attempt to provide alternative theories, going with the flow is not really my forte.
I think we could all agree though, that 'taxing pollution' as per the kyoto accord will not do anything AT ALL to curb, or slow down global warming. IMO, it will only create a mad max scenario where the air we breath can be bought and sold by multinational corporations. Most of whom have no if any regard for human life, political process, or rule of law.
At any rate, I think global warming is a piss poor excuse to 'go green'. Renewable resources should have been exploited back in the 60s and 70s more so than they are today, the technology really hasn't changed at all. Think about how many people have died from cancer or other diseases as a result of smog, sludge and bile wastes from power plants, and toxic run offs from factories.
Not too long ago where I'm originally from in Cincinnati, OH. A coal power plant's sludge tank gave way and dumped hundreds of thousands of tons of sludge into the ohio river (which wasn't clean to start with). People were told not to swim in the river, not to eat fish out of the river, and to stay away from it if at all possible. How could that have been prevented?
I'm currently building a 150KW hydro-electric plant as my first here in the philippines (where there are no laws regarding pollution, hell, you can still buy leaded gasoline here). Within the next 5 years I will have upwards of 10MW of generating capacity. (You aren't the only one with an engineering degree, you can get one of those as easily as you can go to the store to buy toilet paper). I'm not doing it because if 'we dont we're all going to die'. I'm doing it because people have and will continue to die from the bull@!$%# that these factories and plants spew out into the air, lakes, and rivers.
Going back to my original point of the previous post, taking politics and preconceived notions out of the equation.
Have you ever heard of the Maunder Minimum? What is your stance?
I recall a long long time ago, watching or hearing something about the english channel freezing over and people walking over it to france.. If I recall they mentioned something about there being no solar flares during this period? I think it may have been the Maunder Minimum they were talking about, but my brain doesn't work as well as it use to.. (Filled it up with useless programming variables)
I'd love to have further discussions with you, perhaps over IM or Email?
- 1 vote
This article was released regarding a UN report on climate change yesterday..
Scientists have long disputed about how far higher temperatures might help or hamper plants — and farmers — overall. Plants absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow and release it when they rot.
"Global agricultural production potential is likely to increase with increases in global average temperature up to about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), but above this it is very likely to decrease," the draft said.
Senseless, please write comments that long in an article of your own. Further, there is no place on my column for the continuation of the myths you've reproduced here. Some quick points, as that is all I have time for:
- Volcanoes produce less than 1/150th of the amount of atmospheric CO2 annually that man does.
- I didn't disagree that the Mars polar ice cap receded, it just has nothing to do with what is causing warming on Earth (which you implied, not NASA). You should read more, that's why I provided the link.
I'm not going to bother to address the rest, as you seem to skip back and forth from science to policy. The cause and the solution are two entirely different issues and muddying them up is pointless. I really don't much care about anecdotal references to your desk plant or your desire to go against the grain just for the sake of being different, or whatever your reasoning (though I can assure you, your seeming disregard for science won't leave you alone on this website). It appears that you are simply cutting-and-pasting links that appear to support anything that might be in contrary to anthropogenic climate change, regardless of source, date, peer-review, or validity. I strongly suggest you do a great deal more research before you come to my column to post such things. I ran out of patience for such things long before you got here.
Use your own column to spread anti-science myths, not mine. Consider this a polite warning.
- 1 vote
I'm trying to do quite a lot. Our household has tried to adopt several ways of reducing our energy needs (and overall "carbon footprint"), some of which I discussed in this article. I'm also an advocate for so-called "cap-and-trade" markets to reduce emissions, as they have a proven track record for doing so (ref. SO2 emissions), among other benefits. Further, I do my best to provide the latest in science and policy news here on the topic.
Awesome, thanks for supporting the privatization of the air we breath.
That's a quaint notion but I'm not sure why you think that "cap and trade" regulations are privatization at all. However, regulation is nothing new to the energy sector and all arguments to the contrary, has yet to put them out of business. Further, allowing anyone to do whatever they like to the "air we breath" is far more threating than some government control over it, as the government represents the public, not the private sector.
- 1 vote
They're making a terrific point in the article. Data is data - how many people voted on it is a logical fallacy and a common sense one. Environmental change only happens when a lot of individual people believe in what they're reading and hearing and they make changes - things that unnerve them, like exaggerations or being told that they should blindly believe a group of scientists, never works very well. It causes a backlash.
There's enough data on global warming that anyone can see it without being told a political group says they need to believe it. The 'process' they mention is finding out what is the primary cause and that just takes time.
Good seed.
- 6 votes
#5 - Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:13 AM EDTVery good points, Cash. How do we, then, strike a balance between the very technical nature of science and providing that information to the public? Not just for global warming, but in a much more general sense (as this applies to many areas where science eventually goes into policy). It seems to me, in lieu of everyone in the country getting trained in the sciences, having a scientific consensus is the way we have to go.
I suppose the closest analogy on a small scale is when we go to our doctor. We may get some bad news, so we ask for a second opinion. That's the smart thing to do, as some doctors just miss the diagnosis (and even some are just quacks). However, once we get a second or third opinion with the same diagnosis, shouldn't we then begin trust the expertise instead of doubt? The people are stupid, but they also cannot be expected to be up on all the latest science, particularly when so much of it is locked up in the ivory tower (that's a whole different discussion but, in short, I'm all for open access to science publications).
I certainly don't claim to have the answer on how to ensure the public has all the information they need, but it's an issue that's been with us for a while and is always in need of attention. Again, I appreciate the topical comment and I'm glad you enjoyed the seed.
- 1 vote
Yeah, this gets into policy and that's not my strength. I will argue the science but, other than giving people data from both sides and giving them intellectual credit for choosing wisely, I have no answers. Besides, my approach still tends to segment people along party lines - some think Al Gore has something up his sleeve because he's a politician and his exaggerated data drowns out everything else. And the other side says anyone who disagrees must be getting paid by some big company or another and compares them to Nazis. Obviously neither of those is entirely true but thinking they are entirely false would be naive.
An acquaintance is a prof in environmental studies at the U of CO but also a policy expert. He's out of the country this week and unlikely to give it attention if I write him now but he has to have considered 'at what point do you stop digesting data and make a decision.' A CEO I worked for once told me, 'in order of decreasing value, you have the right decision, the wrong decision and no decision.' I usually don't think that is correct but on environmental issues, unless you are making coral reefs out of tires ( 1970s enviro-logic, ha ha ) even something wrong is likely to have more of a beneficial effect than doing nothing.
- 2 votes
I'm so tired of global warming.
- 2 votes
#6 - Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:41 AM EDTMe, too. Let's work to curb it so no one ever speaks about it again.
Is that sarcasm?
It's just that global warming is real regardless of the cause(s). All this arguing over it is inane.
- 1 vote
No, actually, that's just being very blunt. Global warming is huge planetary issue which we all need to address, as individuals and as countries. I'm pretty much done with arguing over it (you might get that drift from my comments above). I'm ready to discuss the actual science as well as both technical and policy ways to help curb it in the future. Literally, so someday, people won't have to have all these discussions (sort of how like people don't talk about polio here anymore).
I do have to ask, if you're so tired of discussions (I'll just use that as a euphemism for arguments), then why bother to leave a comment? Is that irony?
I do love irony.
Basically it's an expression of my exasperation on how much global warming has been beaten on Newsvine. The dead horse doesn't even exist anymore.
- 1 vote
I suppose I would be possibly the most guilty party of that, with 238 seeds or articles tagged "global warming" in my column. However,the science or policy issues surrounding the topic are something that interests me a lot. I find much of the discourse on the topic here very boring, though. I'd much rather be having conversations on various research methods, the merits of different policy suggestions on curbing it's effects, or ways in which people are reducing their own carbon footprint. While we get to do that some here on Newsvine, the majority of what goes on here is just attempts at scoring political points in a game where no one's actually keeping score.
- 1 vote
While we get to do that some here on Newsvine, the majority of what goes on here is just attempts at scoring political points in a game where no one's actually keeping score.
Exactly right. Science doesn't really have a strong following here, it seems.
- 1 vote
Science is actually a huge portion of the site, but not a lot of technical discussions (at least not lately). However, there are a number of scientists that use the site (not me, I'm just an engineer with some interest in the area) who have written some great articles on some research in the news as well as explaining science for the general public. Keep poking around and you'll find some that are well worth reading. Looks like you're already a member of Vinesci, and that's where most of the more "hard science" stuff lands.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
