| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
One of the confusing issues here that really gets us chasing our tails
is 'just what is the consensus view?' Certainly it is that the earth
has warmed over the last century, certainly that the CO-2 levels have
risen dramatically especially over the past 50 years, AND that there
is a connection between these. Where the consensus is weaker involves
the extent that the warming is due to the CO-2 which models certainly
support but long-term historical records are more confusing since
those tend to show CO-2 changes lagging temperature changes. The
likelihood of outcomes (extremes) also lacks strong consensus as even
the IPCC has backed down some of their 'worst case' scenarios as new
reports are released. Certainly there is, I think, little consensus on
just what to do in the short term (more consensus for the long term).
There scientist run up against politics and economics. 'Back to the
stone-age' may be a solution, but no one outside the extreme
environmentalist groups is suggesting that...but how fast and how
extreme should action be? My work suggests that weaning the world off
of carbon (fossil fuels) is likely to take a century and will be
expensive enough to weigh a quick move in that direction against the
cost of possible environmental damage. Anyway--less consensus here.
I think the 'talking heads' of the far right and far left have pushed
the rational discussions to the extremes which then makes it difficult
for the lay-person to really evaluate the scientific consensus versus
the political consensus versus the economic consensus--or just knowing
what those views actually are. It would really help if ALL of these
could be brought back to the middle!
rwt
To add to John's comments, it is unreasonable to expect scientists tof
ignore the consensus view until and unless there is convincing
evidence to the contrary.
I am not surprised from the references below that we have a better
understanding (both scientifically and in the general public) of
health and medicine now than we did in 1990s. Surely we know more now
than we did 10, 50, 100 years ago. And sure, there were critics of
the consensus view, there always are and sometimes they are right.
But it is an error of historical perspective to think the people of
the 1990s were stupid or naive or only politically motivated to base
their health recommendations on the studies at hand; they evaluated
the data and came to a consensus that, Taubes not withstanding, was
not entirely incorrect (and Taubes hypothesis that carbohydrates are
more dangerous than fat is certainly not supported by current data).
This is like faulting generations before the 1960s for not using seat
belts; they didn't exist. Consensus changes because we learn more,
not because the people agreeing on the consensus were stupid or
uninformed or ignored their critics. It would be
olly to investigate alchemy today but it was totally a rational
pursuit in the days before a solid understanding of chemistry. Newton
was not irrational for trying to do experiments in alchemy, there was
no consensus.
As to human caused climate change, I think it is quite irrational to
reject the evidence out of hand. If I were a climate scientist (or
any scientist, really) and came to doubt anthropogenic caused climate
change I would work like hell to find undeniable evidence that
overturned the consensus view (guaranteeing myself an important place
in the history of science). But I wouldn't expect anyone to believe
me until I had that empirical data at hand. You cannot falsify a
scientific claim by citing political bias, financial gain or past
errors that other scientists or governments have made. The consensus
on fat in the diet was overturned (well, actually just
modified/refined) by better data, not political wrangling (and not
until 2001, a decade after the recommendations of 1988).
I have been reading the science journals on climate (NOT the popular
press) for about a dozen years. In my view there has been a honest
attempt by many climate scientists to answer or respond to serious
(empirically based) criticisms of the consensus view and a frank
assessment of what we do and don't know. There are numerous examples
on the RealClimate web page: The slowing of warming in the past
decade is an example; this issue has not been ignored or swept under
the rug
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/).
Cosmic rays as a possible source of climate variability has been
addressed
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/).
The great thing about science is we can and are suppose to change our
minds if we get better information. So far on the climate consensus I
don't see convincing science to the contrary.
---------------------------------
If we knew what is was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?
kyle forinash
kforinas@ius.edu<mailto:kforinas@ius.edu>
http://homepages.ius.edu/kforinas