Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressional Testimony: A Surprising Consensus On Climate

Posted by samzenpus on from the obvious-things-are-obvious dept.

Lasrick writes: Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change. Researchers recently assessed the content of congressional testimony related to either global warming or climate change from 1969 to 2007. For each piece of testimony, they recorded several characteristics about how the testimony discussed climate. For instance, noting whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources. The results: Testimony to Congress—even under Republican reign—reflects the scientific consensus that humans are changing our planet's climate.

5 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Anarchy in Science by trout007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The whole reason science in general works is because there are no leaders. Consensus means nothing. The only problem is that science can never discover the "Truth" (tm). The best it can do is come up with a model that has yet to be disproven. If there is no way to disprove it is faith not science.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Anarchy in Science by trout007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An important part of creating a model is listing your assumptions. Hence the Physics jokes about spherical cows. An important part of science is figuring out of those assumptions are general.

      So Newton's model of gravity was incorret because we have proved it doesn't work in certain circumstances. So far General Relativity (unless I'm mistaken) is the best model we have so far because we have not found evidence it's wrong yet.

      This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  2. Re: Alert! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If I can't confirm it for myself, it isn't science. That limitation can be annoying to people who think they know everything, but nevertheless, that's what science is.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  3. Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course not, but the consensus is driven by the science. That makes it a useful heuristic.

    LOL, if it's being argued before congress it's being driven by money.

    Ask Al Gore the king of carbon cap trading.
    Ask the people made out like bandits on ethanol mandates.

  4. Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You sound as if you don't like it when people turn their knowledge into money.

    Knowledge not at all. Abuse of position oh yes indeed.

    Then again maybe you think this was just honest graft

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    A term so ridiculous it could only be coined by a democrat.