Can 15 Nobel Laureates be wrong?

Question

In Potsdam this week 15 Noble Laureates and nearly 100 other scientists gathered to draw attention to global climate change issues. These are some of the most respected people in their fields and included Mario Molina -- the first scientist to prove that chlorofluorocarbons were putting holes in the ozone.

So what does it take for the disbelievers of climate change and those flat out denying its existence to face reality?

Can those saying climate change is false, assembly such a prestigious group?

Are they saying this many Nobel Laureates are wrong?

The New York Times' article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/europe/11potsdam.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

Jim Z: These 15 won the Nobel for their work -- often decades of painstaking research, testing and studying. They have come to this venue as individual scientists... not for money or politics.

So Mr. Jello:

You stay true to form...don't be so petty and drop the "vote" aspect of this question. You think the decades of work these scientists have put into this question has no value or meaning? Are you that blind?

And another thing Mr. Jello...answer the questions!

Answer 1

Of course they can be wrong. But they probably aren't.

Ask any scientist, however committed to global warming whether they entertain the possibility that their model is flawed and they will (if they have any integrity) tell you yes. For the deniers, that is all they want to hear, and generally all they will listen to.

Ask what the scientist means, and they will tell you that climatic models have an interval of confidence assigned, and follow it up with (as at the IPCC) "we are 95% certain that.." which sounds to the uninitiated like you could roll a 20 sided dice, and 1 time in 20, the model would be wrong. This isn't what the scientist means either, usually. What the scientist does mean is that experimentally there is a 95% chance that their answer lies in the predicted range (temperatures rising by 2-2.5 degrees say). The wider you make the range, the more confident they are, through a process called error analysis.

The second possibility is that their model is flawed, which is possible. All models stand and fall on their ability to explain what has happened, and to predict what will happen. If the predictions are out of whack with reality, the scientists re arrange the model to suit what they see, and apply the process again. The idea is that the model gets more accurate as more time goes by.

Again this process is misunderstood and misrepresented by those pedaling an agenda - on every side of the debate.

Perhaps the scientific process isn't understood by the deniers, but to be fair it isn't really understood by many of the advocates either. Fundamentalists exist on all sides of the debate, and it is all to easy to applaud the ones championing your own point of view.

Shame and sorrow for the politicisation of science.

The direct answer to your question then is that the deniers are saying the Laureates are wrong, but perhaps you should forgive them, for they know not what they say.

Answer 2

Robert Millikan. Less than 1% of Nobel Laureates.

Answer 3

I seriously doubt that these 15 Nobel Laureates are wrong.

Those that don't belief global warming is happening, it seems, like to argue just for the sake of arguing. I think they know they are wrong, they just like to argue anyway, just to annoy. I've noticed that a lot of them don't appear to believe in much of anything beyond their own existence. Now, if the oceans do indeed flood the coast, and forest fires continue destroying the worlds forests, and other natural disasters continue to happen, then they'll probably say something like,"Why did you waste your time arguing with us? we never were going to agree with you anyway." In other words, it is going to take something truly catastrophic and seemingly irreversible to convince skeptics - and then it'll be too late to do anything about it - maybe that's what they want, for whatever sordid reason. Maybe they feel that their stock portfolios are in danger of deflating if industry isn't allowed to destroy the planet anyway it can.

No, they can't assemble a group more prestigious.

They will probably continue to say any scientists are wrong, as well as all those that believe global warming is real.

Thanks for the article, and thanks for this question!!!

Answer 4

You're not going far enough with your question.

Can 99+% of all scientists be wrong?

Can every major scientific organization be wrong?

Can every world leader be wrong?

Can most business leaders be wrong?

Can most of the educated people in the world be wrong?

Can the selection committee for the Nobel Prize be wrong?

All the above questions are backed by real data.

Answer 5

It's possible for them to be wrong. Highly unlikely, but possible. But they're not.

Let's be fair though, I'm sure the global warming skeptics and deniers around here are much smarter than Nobel Laureates. Clearly they're smarter than climate science PhDs, so why not Nobel Laureates?

*edit* Wow, the level of denial never ceases to amaze me. Pooh-poohing the Nobel Prize. Just...wow. Jim z must have a massive ego.

Answer 6

The thing is no one ever explains the blackbody radiation of the planet. The Earth gets ~250 watts per square meter from the sun and radiates more than 450 watts per square meter into the atmosphere. The atmosphere then radiates whatever to space. The dots are never connected as to what happens to the difference between what is received from the sun and what is radiated from the surface. Its a lot more than a simple greenhouse model can incorporate.

Answer 7

I think alot of people are saying that man is not the greatest factor for global climate change. Not the fact that the globe, in certain places, is getting warmer.

Answer 8

JIM, you might SERIOUSLY want to check your figure of 250W received by the Earth from the Sun.

I assume you are speaking in m² which is the international SI unit for surfaces, right?

Then check with the figure from the NASA

Answer 9

Hmmm... They vote? When did science become a popularity contest? Still none of these men can tell you if it will be warmer or colder next year and show their work to how they came to that conclusion.

I have to say I'm amazed to see that peoples politics, their personal beliefs get so mixed into "science". Clearly believers are of a collective mindset. Is it just because it's safer to follow the crowd?

Answer 10

Let's make this perfectly clear. Science is not concensus. Science has to do with facts. Parading out a bunch of winners of a largely politicized prize, is a pretty rediculous way of making a scientific statement. Science needs more evidence than that and it needs to remain skeptical. Sometimes money and politics subverts science and this sort of attitude only encourages that subversion but I am sure it will only increase as the GW fanatics push to seek more power.