Do you agree with the consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists?

Question

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

1) The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2°C in the past century; 0.17°C/decade over the last 30 years)

2) People are causing this

3) If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate

4) This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/

Do you agree with the scientific consensus, or do you believe the small number of skeptical scientists are correct and the consensus is wrong?

Mikira - as you asked me the other day, why should I care what you think?

The consensus is very important. Scientists don't come to a consensus unless the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

However, I constantly discuss the scientific evidence as well. For example, see my most recent question, and see if you can answer it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AonNo_A3PONVoYUsuGksfKoFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071211133550AA67op4

Plasma - though I am a scientist (it's right there in my job title) and have 2 degrees in physics, my background doesn't matter, because I happily acknowledge that I'm not a climate science expert (though I learn all I can about the subject).

You know who are experts? The climate scientists who form the consensus.

Answer 1

1) Yes, this part isn't really debatable, this is carefully collected data. The earth is getting warmer. the question is who / what is causing it.

2) Yes, i believe people are causing it. When you look at charts that show the spike in GHG emissions, you see that there is a steady line up until the industrial revolution it absolutely sky-rockets from there.

3) Yes, GHG in the atmosphere are trapping heat on the earth and are causing many problems are will cause devastating problems in the future.

4) Yes, as citizens of the earth, it is our responsibility to do our part.

Answer 2

Absolutely yes.
People say it's arrogant to think that man can change the climate. I'd argue the opposite. Look at our landscape; completely changed as mankind continually pushed back the frontier. Most of the earth's landmass has been altered by man in different ways. Farming, deforestation, construction, residential development is proof of this. These are only some examples.
Look at the oceans - we know less about the ocean floor than we do about the surface of moon but we manage to over fish almost everywhere threatening species with extinction. Years ago people would've said 'don't be so conceited to think that man can empty the oceans'. Who'd say that now? In the EU Atlantic cod is a protected species .

My basic argument is this. If we accept that we can radically alter these environments, the earth and the oceans, why can't people even CONTEMPLATE THE IDEA that we can alter the composition of the atmosphere? Make up your own mind but at least think about it first without bringing some bullshit right versus left ideology into it.

NB: Despite having studied climatology in college I do not claim to be a climatologist.
I've deliberately omitted stats here because of the potential for manipulation on both sides. I'm just trying to put forward a rational argument.

Answer 3

I distrust consensus, particularly in science. If there were any drive towards consensus, it would subvert the inherent skepticism required of valid science. In my view valid science invites challenge and criticism, to hone and improve scientific understanding.

In that respect using the term "consensus" may be doing the topic and the scientific process under it a disservice. We have to be careful not to allow loaded terminology like that to politicize science. Perhaps a better word world be "majority" since that at least acknowledges the right for a "minority" to exist.

Unfortunately business interests are threatened, so we have an unusual level of interference in the scientific process. I started to say 'unprecedented " interference, but actually the precedent was the tobacco industry interfering with the understanding of medical science. In fact some of the key players seem to be exactly the same!
Steve Milloy: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=6

Perhaps the tens of millions of dollars ExxonMobil is investing to discover countering evidence will yield results, but so far all I see from them and their partners seems to amount to paid propaganda, often from people with questionable credentials and with clear ties to ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, or the oil industry in general.

In the meantime there seems to be a majority of scientists that support your points above. The balance seems to be thousands of scientists (1200 in IPCC alone) supporting your statements vs. a handful of questionable ones.

Only time will tell whether we're engaging in a "world is flat" fantasy, or whether we truly are blowing our chance to preserve civilization as we know it.

The risk of taking prudent steps is minimal, while the risk of "business as usual" growth is huge, so the "we ought to do something about it" portion of your point #4 seems very reasonable.

There's a lot of good that can come out of raising automobile fuel economy (reducing foreign dependence, buying us time to find alternative while we use the oil we have left) and reducing coal-fired power anyway (reduction in methymercury, etc.). Global warming may not even be the most important reason to finally take some of the steps that we need to take.

Answer 4

I agree from what I've seen/read that it is. Also, common sense says overpopulation would cause something to go wrong when 'it's' unbalanced. I think we've done amazing things so far...but, that's what's causing the overpopulation.
'jbtascam '-Science has come a long way since then.
I would think a consensus of todays scientists would be very different than the consensus of 'scientists' who were ruled by the church.
'bigdmize'-Do you not think the climate scientists already asked and tested those theories? Remember, they're scientists-not a branch of a political party.

Answer 5

Your first point only goes back 30 years. What about a longer climate record. Your "main point" doesn't fit the theory then does it?

People are causing what? Global warming? Not Volcano's ? Not decomposing Bio matter? Not all living things on this planet, whether they be alive and expelling gas or dead and decomposing?
Is the increase in global temperature being caused by GHG's or is the increase in global temperatures causing a rise in GHG's?
The "consensus" you speak of is shrinking everyday, the vast majority is not so vast anymore, as GW public relations machine loses steam, and more credible non-bias scientists express their views without fear of reproach, I think we will see the "Consensus" swing in the other direction.

Answer 6

A scientific consensus by 3000 + scientists is good enough for me,

Answer 7

A consensus once thought the Earth was at the center of the universe.

Get with the times dude, get out of the middle ages.

Consensus are for lazy "scientist" who want to stop looking for facts.

Answer 8

Science is not done by consensus, it is done using observable facts. Consensus is the tool of politics and politicians. Any "scientist" who cites consensus as a proof has discredited himself and should be ignored in scientific circles. Any politician citing "scientific consensus" as a basis for advancing his personal agenda should be treated as the fool he obviously is.

Answer 9

Dana you claim you are a scientist, but the way you just harp on about concensus makes me doubt you. Science is about asking questions, not getting a consensus.

Edit: Dana - this is the last question of yours I ever plan to answer. I discovered the other day how you and your friends have things rigged on here. You claim I pick the best answer based on a bias, but I can prove otherwise, but I bet you can't.

Answer 10

Based on the information to date, yes!