Does "scientific consensus" mean anything? Global Warming.?

Question

Up until the middle of the 18th century there was a general scientific consensus that there was a substance called phlogiston that was the active ingredient in combustion. Once the ingredient was burned it became it's true elemental substance "calx." Of course, the substance phlogiston never actually existed.

Throughout history, there have been countless theories that were adopted by the majority of the scientific community that were later proved definitively false. Why do some currently feel that just because there are claims that there is a scientific consensus about a theory (Global Warming), that that theory is unquestionably true?

@SteveC - No one can argue with that. Of course scientific methods of gathering data are always improving. But surely you're not suggesting that we've reached the pinnacle of scientific discovery and that are methods are now infallible.

*"are" above should be "our." I hate stupid little mistakes like that.

@Kenny J - Yea, how could anybody feel compelled to learn from history. What are they thinking. I find it humorous that you're suggesting that "thinking" people are the ones who take what others tell them as truth. For the record, science is about challenging other's ideas, not swallowing them happily.

@ pip - The science is easily disputable. The warming that many claim is "unprecedented" simply isn't. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperatures were warmer on average from 1895 to 1940 than they are today. The steepest warming trend is from 1910 to 1935 which was before significant use of fossil fuels.

Then the US cooled off for three and a half decades which is what spawned the "global cooling" nonsense touted during that time period. This by the way, was the period of greatest growth in fossil fuel consumption.

The rate of warming from 1910 to 1934 which was a period of limited fossil fuel consumption was steeper than the rate of the warming trend from 1975 to 1998 (which was a period of significant fossil fuel consumption).

@Dana - All scientific discovery is based on challenging generally accepted ideas, be they scientific or otherwise. I could list hundreds of scientifically accepted theories in nearly every field including medical and aerodynamics that were eventually proven incorrect. Your desire to believe in Global Warming is quite obviously overshadowing any desire to approach it from a scientific perspective. The fact is, scientific consensus have repeatedly been proven wrong throughout history. In fact very few generally accepted scientific ideas did not evolve from scrutinizing previous generally accepted ideas.

Answer 1

yeah.. darn them for having a consensus on gravity!


Yes.. science gets things wrong from time to time... but with every generation we get better at getting things right... and the longer we've studied something and the better equipment we have... the more correct our analysis become... when we got telescopes we discovered we weren't the center of the Universe....and we can fairly easily analyze and take readings of Green House Gases as well as calculate the Amount that Humans produce as well as the effect of these gases on the atmosphere. We have more than sufficient technology to come to decent conclusions about Global Warming. Perfect? No, but decent, yes.


Edit: Fossil fuel consumption started vamping up in the late 1800's and has been on a stead increase ever since. For the most part the temperature has increased along with it.. obviously there are more factors involved than just green house gases in our heat.. or there wouldn't have been a cooling trend.. but just how much cooler would that trend have been without the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

you can test the ability of CO2 to retain heat in a lab.

apply that to the increase in the atmosphere.

it's simple science.

again.. yes, there are other factors.. but we are overwhelming them with the cummulative CO2 output.

Answer 2

Yes it has become a religion and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.Think of how much money certain groups will make off of the hype.Think of all that government money going to "research".Besides there is only so much you can do ,after all whoever controls the weather controls the world.Fear is the best political motivator. Climate change is part of the nature of the planet.Common sense is to have clean energy but until there is a buck in it all that happens is talk,talk and more talk.Government regulations,fines and penalties(gotta get that bailout money somewhere) We certainly need clean air and water .I am the original recycler and I don't waste energy just like many other people.I use energy and don't go for the "guilt" trip of doing so. I have a problem with Gore the guru who flies around a fuel guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a bigger one to fly back and forth to California.Remember her saying she wants to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.We can all start by using the new energy saving light bulbs. Oh I forgot they are the ones with mercury in them.Oh,well seems like a good idea at the time. I guess you all heard that some genius politician wanted to tax cow farmers for any that own more than 100 for emitting "methane gas" yeah it's true.Can we bottle it instead?Or on second thought send some from the bull to that politician as he knows the B.S. when he sees or smells it.

Answer 3

Global Warming has become nothing more than a political issue. A consensus, much like "scientific data" ( consisting of random numbers), can be altered to achieve a desired objective. No one can deny that a warming trend is happening, but Global Warming "expert" Albert Gore has carefully chosen a group of scientists and meteorologists to support his own platform. He has been very careful and calculating by skewing the numbers in his favor (i.e. choosing 6 of 8 or 75% who confirm). The problem with his "The sky is falling" premise is that less than half of the scientific community concur with it. They generally view Global Warming as a cyclical phenomenon. The only real consensus is in Albert Gore's mind (a very scary thing).

Answer 4

Well
1) the scientists are much more educated on this matter than others
2) This was thought up in 1600s before the process of burning was able to be tested....so not really a Theory as scientific method defines.
3) Science is honest and so actually checks itself from ego..unlike religion,politics, etc.
4) Flat out fact that temps are rising and makes me laugh that people think this is natural is ok...we will still die off so i do not understand the point in caring if natural or artificial.
5) Science Theories are more often validated than proved false...a much better track record than any other human endeavor.



pdooma> That is argument over classification...nothing about Pluto changed except its name..so less a science issue than vocabulary. Also I would rather lose Pluto than add like 37 new planets

Answer 5

Yes, a scientific consensus tells you that there is overwhelming scientific evidence in support of a certain theory.

The fact that the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past is an exceptionally weak argument, because it's right far more often than it's wrong. You rely on the scientific consensus every day. Whenever you go to the doctor's office, he diagnoses you based on his education of the medical science consensus. When you fly in an airplane you're trusting that it won't fall out of the sky because of the scientific consensus that its design will keep it in the air.

But as soon as you hear a scientific theory you don't like, you trot out this lame excuse that the scientific consensus is wrong sometimes. Sorry, but that's a terrible argument.

Climate scientists are the most knowledgeable people in the world about global warming, and they are in consensus that humans are the primary cause of the current warming because that's what all the scientific evidence indicates.

Answer 6

Since the vast majority of scientists support the theory of GW, this is enough evidence for thinking people to believe in the theory. Those who rather look back and make excuses on why this may not exist seem to accept BS theory's on WMDs and mushroom clouds from a man who could barely pull Cs in College.
So you were saying?

EDIT:

Nothing wrong with science being challenged. But since we have a majority from groups like NOAA, NASA and the EPA supporting this and those who make a living off lies and deception against this, I defer to the scientists.

Answer 7

Yeah, and women live longer than men - except the part of having more dangerous jobs, fighting in wars (no disrespect, but until recently, and world wide - in no way do I feel less respect for women serving), and having more dangerous hobbies.

What's that you say? Didn't account for those?

Answer 8

When the water runs out and we have no more will it be true? Look at worldly pictures from different time periods in life you can see the water is decreasing. You can see the Ice is melting there are yearly pictures. But no to "scientific consensus" theories. Try facts.

Answer 9

Science is undisputed facts, not a consensus. Scientific Consensus is another term for opinion.

Answer 10

Global Warming scientists are the new Bishops of this wacked out religion.