How can there be "Consensus" when many recent claims have been proven false?

Question

I consistently hear AGW supporters claim "consensus" as if it is scientific proof. But how can any individual call the science "beyond discussion" when many of the AGW claims have been proven wrong.
In 2001, the IPCC's report used "Hockey Stick" as proof man was the problem. However, this evidence was completely debunked. A main piece of evidence which is completely disproved does not lend itself to a science that is already "solved".
In the USA, 1998 was proclaimed as the hottest year in history by NASA and James Hansen. After scientist studied the data, it was found an error existed in NASA's calculations and 1934 was the hottest year. Again, the science is not past discussion.
Another example, in Al Gore's movie, he said, "Do these graphs fit together?" He then went on to explain that the data showed CO2 drives temperature. Again, scientist studying the data discovered that CO2 lagged temp by about 800 years.
Why do people claim the science is settled, when obviously, it is not?

Sorry, the hockey stick was totally and completely debunked. It is not even close to correct. It has been shown to be incorrect both in the data and the model it used.

As for the global temperature, who has the best and most comprehensive system in use? The USA. How many countries measured data closely in 1930's. Not to many. How much global coverage is there sine 3/4 is covered in water, and the poles were never measured till recently. Same with Africa and most of former USSR. We are the drivers of these temps, and we are wrong.

As for the 800 year lag, the point is that in your sides opinion, the "science is settled". But, as we all know it is far from being settled.

Answer 1

In 1988 Newsweek published an article that said global warming is real, and that there is a consensus among all scientists. So they have been claiming consensus even before the study of climate science even began. In reality there is no consensus. That claim is a way of manipulating public opinion. If all of the top scientists say it is true, then it must be true, and there is no need to question the science. But public opinion polls taken of scientists say it is not true.

http://downloads.heartland.org/2086111.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html


One of the problem of claiming that the "evidence is overwhelming" is that in the past temperatures have been known to fluctuate. There was a period of time 800 years ago when temperatures were considered warmer than today. It is known as the Medieval Warm Period. That is the time the Vikings settled in Greenland and farmed the land. The are now discovering settlements in what is now permafrost.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
If one makes a reasonable assumption that people settled next to their farms, what was then farmland is now permafrost. So temperatures had to be warmer. Even the UN's IPCC in its first two reports acknowledged the existence of the MWP .

So in order to claim overwhelming evidence one would have to say this is what caused the MWP, and those since those factors are now not present then the cause of the recent warming would have to be increases in CO2. Since they could not do that they wanted it eliminated.
“With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I
gained significant credibility in the community of scientists
working on climate change. They thought I was one of
them, someone who would pervert science in the service of
social and political causes. So one of them let his guard
down. A major person working in the area of climate
change and global warming sent me an astonishing email
that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm
Period.”
Source: Presentation by S McIntyre At Conference Stockholm Sweden, September 9 2006

A little while later Mann came up with his hockey stick graph and "got rid of the Medieval Warm Period".

Answer 2

Let's take each of your points.

The hockey stick was not debunked. The National Academy of Sciences said it's conclusions were basically correct, but the statistical methods questionable. Since then, it has been reproduced many times with better statistics. Ten peer reviewed studies:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

The "error" amounted to a few hundredths of a degree in the US, and about one-thousandth of a degree worldwide. It also applied only to a 2 year period. It changed absolutely nothing significant. In the US (NOT worldwide) 1934 and 1998 were extremely close, and a few hundredths of a degree made a difference. Globally those years aren't remotely close. The worldwide data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

In previous warmings CO2 did lag temperature. This time THERE IS NO LAG. CO2 and temperature are going up together. It distinguishes this warming from historical ones, and this is actually proof that this time, it's not natural, but is mostly caused by CO2.

The consensus is indisputable. EVERY major scientific organization says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The bottom line:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Answer 3

It is amazing isn't it? I'm not a genius...no wait, I am... hmmm well to read how these other intelligent people have taken data and skewed it.. and are presenting it as fact is beyond me! LOL

When anyone would do this in the past they were laughed out of the community and they were prevented from presenting again.

Do you recall in the 70s how they threatened us (the world) with global ICE AGE??? Has anyone mentioned that, and how their data was fine supposedly?

I don't understand why the world isn't listening to the scientists that are saying, "Not so fast there Mr Gore."

The temperature increase of the planet is maybe 1 degree. That's based upon data taken in what? the 1800s? What's not to say that the instruments back then were off 1 degree? I mean, they tout how specially advanced our current measuring devices are.

And why hasn't anyone but the countering scientists shown that Greenland is the coldest it has ever been? How is that global warming?

In the 50s and 60s we grew up with what we termed as a "government" or "communist" plot. I don't know what the PC term is today, but it sure looks the same.

Answer 4

The only claims being proven wrong are the alternative theories to anthropogenic global warming, such as Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjSe.iI669IUyynlAjNLz5UjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

The so-called "hockey stick" graph was proven to be essentially correct by 10 seperate studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And 1998 was the hottest year on record globally. 1934 was the hottest year in the lower 48 United States, but guess what? It's not called "Lower 48 United States Warming", it's called "Global Warming". 1934 wasn't even a warm year on a global level, let alone the hottest on record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The 800 year lag just proves that other things can cause climate change besides CO2, but we already knew that. It does not prove that CO2 can't cause global warming. In fact, the fact that CO2 and global temperatures are currently rising at the same time (with no 800 year lag) is very strong evidence that CO2 is indeed the cause of the current warming. If something else was causing the warming, why isn't CO2 lagging behind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

This are some really old arguments which have been disproven hundreds of times a long time ago. Please try to keep up.

Answer 5

Easy. If a "scientist" goes against the consensus, then he must work for the oil corporations, and he's no longer "fair".

Only "scientist" who follow the consensus are "pure" enough and smart enough to understand the "science".