You’ve heard the claims:
“The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming.” — Al Gore
“In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities…” — The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes, Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
I’ve looked for the consensus. I haven’t found it. I’ll let you know if I do.
Even if there is a consensus, it’s of little value if the underlying basis of the consensus is faulty:
It is amazing that some political leaders proclaim the debate over global warming is “over” when some of the meteorological community’s best minds continue to clash over the nature and magnitude of a phenomenon that could entirely offset the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Climate Change Reconsidered , the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), page 17)
The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the predictions of future temperature rise are heavily dependent upon computer models that do not incorporate many of the significant complexities of Earth’s climate. See The problem is in the modeling.
Is consensus science or is consensus politics?
1
Click for Exit78 Pinterest policy.
{ 4 comments }
Finally, some sanity, Al Gore notwithstanding, on this manufactured issue! Back in my 1970′s school days we were warned of the approaching Ice Age, and were told to prepare accordingly. If you take a look at financial incentives to promote global warming, err…excuse me now it’s climate change, it becomes clear that the concept’s most prominent proponents are making quite a bit of jing what with carbon offset-related products, financial derivatives, etc. And politically-motivated fallout has caused members of the scientific community who didn’t automatically sign on to the mumbo-jumbo career harm.
While it’s always a great thing to be aware of adverse environmental effects and make relevant efforts to conserve and protect, a lot of this never passed the smell test. To wit, another quote from Climate Change Reconsidered:
The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC[United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.
Does anyone who purchased carbon offsets feel stupid yet? Of course, as a resident of Minnesota, I always felt global warming highly desirable. Thanks, Mike.
Betsy’s last blog post..FROM THE ROAD: NEW FRIENDS AND OLD TREES
You’re welcome, Betsy.
From what I’ve heard, Spain is going through some difficulties related to being at the forefront of taking action to battle climate change — such as high costs for wind power, low effectiveness of the wind power, and unemployment in the related industries.
Consensus is definitely political. And as has been pointed out in many places how odd is it that President Obama will endorse nuclear power for Iran but urges the U.S. to take up windmills and solar panels. Nuts!
Terro – As a work in nuclear for over 35 years, Obama’s actions impacting America’s nuclear program is one of the biggest disappointments for me in this administration so far.
Comments on this entry are closed.