If a consensus makes global warming true, could a consensus stop global warming?

Question

If we must all agree that there is "global warming" caused by man (and woman?) because that is the "consensus", does that mean that if the "consensus" was the opposite, then there would be no global warming?

Apparently, that would be the logical conclusion if you follow the "global warming" crowd! All we have to do to stop global warming is get a "consensus" and...POOF! ... no "global warming".

Bob, did you read your own link? The IPCC link states:
"Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback
affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the
largest source of uncertainty."

Now if 98% of atmosphic composition effect on global temperatures is caused by water vapor, don't you think these "scientist" should have a clue about modeling the effects of clouds?

Coincidentally, here's an article from Saturday June 2 in Canada Finanacial Post on the fact that the consensus is BS (Blatant Statements).

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Answer 1

The consensus is that global warming is caused by humans, I feel like the scientist that are researching global warming are on to something.They now are gathering evidence that global warming is an earthly cycle,meaning it happens to the earth every couple of hundreds of years.And if in fact that it is true that it is a cycle then we as a humans can only slow it down[hopefully].We need to take better care of our planet with or without global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

I see what you are saying. The "supporters" of global warming claim that, even in the absence of real demonstrable proof, the very fact that there is a scientific consensus proves that global warming is real.

What if there was no consensus, or what if the consensus was the reverse (like we are heading to an ice age for example). Would that prove that human influence on global warming was a load of nonsense.

The answer is no it wouldn't prove anything because scientific consensus is an oxymoron. A theory is either scientifically provable or else it just happens to be popular at a particular time - the two are completely different things. Popularity, of course doesn't prove anything.

Answer 3

Great question, consensus isn't science, it's a poll. basically a consensus doesn't mean squat. Do you know how many scientists didn't believe in many of Einsteins' hypothese when they came out? If we would have taken a poll and left it at that, we probably would have never even heard of Einstein. There are probably just as many scientists who don't believe that we have enough proof to show man is heating up the earth with CO2 emissions as we do who believe it.

Also on the hockey stick graphs, another "scientific fallacy" the correlation between CO2 and temperatures do not prove CO2 is heating up the earth, correlation shows they are simply related, a controlled experiment in a closed system would have to be conducted to try and prove CO2 was heating up the earth, but surprise when I looked at popular global warming web pages to find such an experiment what did I find? absolutely nothing of the sort!! One web page even went as far to say a controlled experiment wouldn't do any good!!! Well i'm not surprised but then again that's because I know the difference between real science and BS.

The problem is a failed education system. We don't teach kids science anymore and they don't know what true science is, the reason we don't teach kids science is because it's easier to control and manipulate an ignorant public than it is to control and manipulate and educated one.

Answer 4

Consensus does not not make global warming true. Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. It is no way a scientific fact or conclusion. If anything it's a crude theory at best.

If you have done your homework on the subject of man-made global warming you will find that the so called skeptics are more and more putting this hypocrisy to rest because of the scientific facts that are overwhelmingly debunking this weak theory of this consensus.

Answer 5

True that the planet is warming and there are a consensus among most climatologist that the planet is warming. The affect that man plays in this change is still questionable.
The sun has over the last 15 years increased it emissions of heat warming not only our planet but others in the solar system. The earths core is also warming.

And your logic can be somewhat supported, if all the countries of the planet devoted resources to develop new ways to reduce the warming, "poof" no global warming.

The interesting thing is that some scientist believe that the melting polar caps will slow down the oceans conveyor belt and a ice age will rapidly develop--poof no more global warming.

We are living in some adventurous times.

Answer 6

The consensus over global warming in the scientific community doesn't make it true, and no one ever said it did (although Rush Limbaugh has attempted to start the rumor that they have). The consensus is there because the science is in and the evidence shows that global warming is real. Consensus doesn't result in science, but science almost invariably results in consensus.

Global warming theory is no different from evolutionary theory or the theory of relativity. When it first came about in the nineteenth century, very few (if any) scientists accepted it. But as the years went by and more and more evidence was found to support it, more and more scientists accepted it. And today virtually everyone in the scientific community accepts it. Not because they think consensus makes it fact, but because the evidence really is that strong.

Answer 7

Where is your logic? Is it "the consensus" that is making it true? No. Everybody can agree that it's not the case and that's not going to change the fact of the matter. Your putting it into a ridiculous-seeming argument doesn't make it any more or less true or not. It's going to be true or it's going to be false and the "logical" conclusion has nothing to do with who agrees with what.

If it were true that it were the "consensus" that was "making global warming true", then it would seem to follow that an opposite consensus might have the opposite effect.

Answer 8

Don't really think your argument is logical since consensus means nothing in and by itself.
The thing with global warming is that whether one believes it or not, hypothetically, if we do the things we are talking about doing, reducing emissions, reducing oil dependency, preserving the environment, buying food locally, using alternative energy sources, etc,etc, wouldn't the world still be a better place? We would still have a cleaner planet and a better quality of life. So, what is the downside of that? I don't see any.

Answer 9

You've answered your own question. If global cooling became the consensus view, then they would all cite numbers to support that opinion. There has never been a consensus that created a "truth". It works the other way and sometimes the truth chages the consensus. For example: Columbus vs. Flat Earth believers. Anbd sometimes it does not, as we have a Flat Earth Society today.

Answer 10

I was listening to a scientific debate over global warming. One person used the "think of the children" and the consensus argument. The rebuttal to that was if I said the moon is made out of cheese, no one will use the consensus argument. They will take me aside and point the errors in my ways. They use the consensus argument when they do not have responses to a lot a points. The "think of your children argument" is used to make you come to decisions based on your emotions not logic.

Before the argument was 100% consensus. That is a lie. Now these same people are saying 90%. These liars want us to believe that as well. Let me tell you the art of propaganda. Take a simple statement, make it simple, say it often enough, and people will take that statement as fact.

Answer 11

Like both of us,most if not all the so-called consensus scientists are darwinian taught;i say this because you could well be mixing-up the notion of "consensus" with what i call
universal darwinian training( e.g. that most scientists are "right", even the wrong ones; That we cannot really or
sincerely learn-from-our mistakes,because the best,like
scientists,dont make any(!).
You obviously go too far in saying," All we have to do.......is get a "consensus" and...POOF!...." - we have the answer.
What we have is AN
answer(that is, "no global warming") and if i may say so a
trite one. And i sincerely hope you can see that; for you do
bring-to-the-fore an important question,that of global warming.
And its possible that a majority of us,non-scientists
alike, have to become not only committed to this but to become active in its reductive-solution.
And we can obviously do that as we have been taught to do,
by not wasting energy/keeping our "bills" down: And thus
Saving our cash - just like those perceptive (and logical)
ancestors wanted.