Do Man-made global warming enthusiasts realize that scientific fact is not determined by a head count?

Question

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS does not equal FACT.

If it did, the Earth would still be flat and in the center of the universe.

Answer 1

Exactly. A couple of skeptics actually had the mathematical proof that the sun was at the center of the solar system. It was the majority view, the consensus of the time that labeled these skeptics as heretics and were punished by the gvmt at the time.

Sound familiar? Why is it that man never learns from his past mistakes?

Answer 2

One point I can add is that given the number of scientists that supposedly agree that global warming is man-made, it is highly unlikely that they are all climate experts. I suspect many are biologists, others may be students or research assistants.

This is very important because the general public may not realize how specialized you would have to be as a scientist. I am doing a PhD in Organizational Behavior. If I was asked anything about Finance, Accounting, Economics, Strategy, or even topics within my field (motivation, personality, group dynamics, etc), I would have an opinion but not one that anyone should take too seriously. I know a very narrow field very very well and the rest ... well, I have a general idea but no in-depth knowledge. This is not just me. It applies to almost anyone with a PhD.

Answer 3

So you think we should disregard all of the data supporting global warming because more scientists believe it than don't? Seriously, can't you do better than this?

Most people also agree the sky is blue, but I suppose we should not believe that either right?

Worst logic I have ever heard.

In addition, scientists did not believe the earth was flat.

"The erroneous modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been listed by the Historical Society of Britain as No. 1 in its compendium of the ten most common historical illusions,[2] and been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[2] Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[2] The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, first entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[2]"

Answer 4

The scientific consensus is that the world is round, and NOT the center of the Universe.

Score: scientific consensus 2, Bible 0.

Answer 5

I'll be willing to bet none of you who believe the IPCC comes to its conclusions by tallying "pro" and "con" votes has ever sat in a room of scientists who are debating something until a consensus opinion emerges. It will be a great day for skeptics and scientists when everyone agrees that "consensus" in terms of a scientific debate does not mean you count up votes. A good "consensus" opinion is formed by sifting through the evidence and determining which of the available theories best fits the data. If you remain ignorant of how this process differs from "everyone simply voting how they feel" then you have nothing to offer to the climate debate except raw emotion, which is essentially worthless in trying to resolve technical problems.

Answer 6

They also seem to think it's determined by who can boo the loudest and who can heap the most insults on those "oil company stooges who deliberately deceive the world for their own selfish ends". Trouble is that some of those "stooges" like to point out that the environment doesn't do what the consensus says it should have done as it has been warming from the ground up not from the 10km altitude down.

Bob, I seem to recall that Vce Admiral Truly thinks the army needs more hummers and tanks to deal with global warming. I'm not sure you and he are one the same side. I've noticed you've stopped linking to his speach. Perhaps the military could destroy some enemy vehicles to offset their own carbon footprint.

Answer 7

Your final statement is incorrect because obviously the current consensus is that the Earth is neither flat nor the center of the universe.

While it's true that scientific consensus doesn't determine what's factual, it's a darn good indicator. Scientists don't all agree on a conclusion unless there's a lot of evidence to support it.

In fact, we rely on the scientific consensus on a daily basis. When you ride in an airplane, you're relying on the scientific consensus that it will be able to fly without plummeting out of the sky. When you go to the doctor, you're relying on him to diagnose you correctly based on the medical science consensus that certain symptoms are related to certain health issues. You're currently relying on the scientific consensus that your computer is built in such a way that it will function and be able to connect over the Internet to the Yahoo Answers website.

Then suddenly there's a scientific consensus that people don't want to hear (humans are causing dangerous global warming) and people start to question the validity of scientific consensus. It's rather silly if you ask me. Rather similar to when the scientific consensus was that smoking caused lung cancer, except we're all reliant on fossil fuels while not everyone was addicted to nicotine.

Answer 8

It's obvious they don't realize that scientific fact isn't determined by a head count. They even believe they can get good data from an Ice Core. Without even thinking about the fact ice deteriorates on it's own over time. That air is constantly moving and these Ice Cores are only from certain regions such as Antarctica. Tell me how many living things are on Antarctica? Now there collecting air samples in Hawaii, where life thrives. To me that is all suspect. And for them to feel they have empirical data from that is blatantly arrogant and false.

Answer 9

Scintific facts are determined by evidence and analysis.

But the deniers only show their total ignorance of science by harping on the term "scientific consensus." It soesnt refer to a "head count."

When any new area is being studied, there are of course differing hypotheses adnd views. As more evidence is gathered, it is published, analyzed, and debated. Over time, invalid hypotheses are disgarded and a body of verified evidence that proves one or another hypothesis correct. Wnen that point is reached, scientists refer to it as a "scientific consensus."

That is how the term is used and the fact that the deniers don't have the faintest notion how science works doesn't mean squat--all it does is show they don't know what they are talking about.

Answer 10

Yes.

It's encouraging to see a skeptic acknowledge that Senator James "Oil Payroll" Inhofe's "400 skeptical scientists" list is easy to dismiss.

Instead, it's best to go straight to the latest research. The Bush Administration is notoriously skeptical in public about mankind's role in the current global warming, but here are summaries of some of their latest research, which is being conducted across ten federal agencies:

http://co2conference.org/agenda.asp
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/default.htm
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/activities/AcceleratingAtmosphericCO2.htm

This was all published in late October and November.

Skeptics that care enough about their credibility to go stgraight to the sources where most of the science in this field is being conducted and published, one of the striking things you notice very quickly is that credible contrary theories and evidence are scarce to nonexistent.

The scarcity of qualified credible skeptic scientists doesn't stop ExxonMobil from flooding the media with contrary articles (generally not peer-reviewed scientific papers, so many can be pure fiction) from paid pseudo-scientists (speaking far out of their field for example) engineers and former tobacco lobbyists.

What the oil industry is particularly good at is taking many scientist's comments out of context. Many of

The bottom line is that the oil industry doesn't need to convince everyone. They just need enough people who don't question the sources or funding of their contrary (and often ridiculous) theories to delay action. ExxonMobil alone makes nearly a billion dolalrs per week profit, so every month they can delay raising auto MPG standards is another $3-4B in the bank. Some people fall for it, some don't. So far it's worked well enough to delay action for 20+ years.

Answer 11

Sure. But that doesn't mean it doesn't tell you something.

Your examples are good. In science what really counts is the data. About 2000 years ago, Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth. Once that data was in, the scientific consensus (which comes from the data) was that the Earth was round.

Only ignorant "skeptics" who ignored the data and the resulting scientific consensus, still thought the Earth was flat. Same with global warming.

A sampling of the mountain of global warming data (also see the Sources):

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Consensus is not itself proof. But, without good data, there is no consensus. Bottom line:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut