Slashdot Mirror
Consensus On Consensus: Climate Experts Agree On Human-Caused Global Warming (theguardian.com)
mspohr quotes a report from The Guardian written by Dana Nuccitelli, environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com: There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies -- including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, [Dana Nuccitelli] and six of her colleagues -- have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it's somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
The problems don't start till 2100, and I'll be dead by then. Global warming is future people's problem, NOT mine!
Carbon caps are shit. 1% increases in efficiency here and there are shit.
This leaves a few options:
1. A tech breakthrough in energy production.
2. Massive decrease in energy consumption, meaning a loss of lifestyle for a couple billion people.
3. A stopgap until item 1 happens. This means nukes.
Why is it we are not afraid to dump tons of radioactive elements into the air from coal plants (dilute yes), not to mention the ash and slag? We are not afraid to blow mountains to bits to do this: http://explore.org/photos/6235..., but we are afraid to set aside areas for relatively safe plants and storage? WTF is wrong with us as a species where we will keep giving money to barbaric warlords for fossil fuels, but not invest in better sources? Who is responsible for the drumbeat of fear that prevents makes this our current reality?
Silence is a state of mime.
they are selling this hard. I mean when Einstein's theory of relativity was in question, did they take a survey and consider the matter settled? I mean that took nearly 40 years to have experimental proof, and they want to put it to bed now?
The theory of (CO2 forced) climate change has been around for 150 years. For the first 120, it wasn't particularly controversial. I'm not sure why we would consider it particularly controversial now, random guys on the internet trolling the science notwithstanding. Mostly because this makes for more views if the media frames it as a controversy, rather than merely pointing out what we've known for a long time which is that CO2 in the atmosphere impacts the climate, so changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the climate. Sorry.
The point of highlighting the consensus is to ensure that people who want to dispute the established science understand that they need to provide proof.
Once and for all? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Science is not a once and for all deal *ever*. So odd thing to claim.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Every single story here on Slashdot's is override with denial it's bullshit. For a bunch of seemingly intelligent people, I just don't get it. I attempt to look at things objectively. I've got 25 years of experience in physics and engineering. I even understand that academia has its flaws and that on an individual basis it's easy to get away with fudging things in a paper or two. This article is about once again going over the fact that there's a huuuuge, overwhelming scientific consensus supporting AGW, and everyone here thinks that they somehow are smarter than the global community of climate scientists. Get the fuck over yourselves
With carefully redefined terms, it is possible to make any statement truthful. For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse), the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
Problem solved — 100% unanimity achieved...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Well, I do think this part is fun:
The new paper cites as evidence Cook's old paper (referenced as "C13"), which has been pretty thoroughly refuted by now. I mean, it's pretty amazing that these people can be caught red-handed lying about their methodology, beyond any reasonable doubt, and then act like nothing happened. The "C13" paper is utter garbage. I haven't read the entire new paper yet, but if it cites "C13" my expectations are extremely low.
And just FYI: I'm not going to argue about that fact. If anybody doubts that "C13" was garbage, all they have to do is spend a few minutes on Google and view the evidence. Deliberately (and repeatedly) lying about your data and your methods is a cardinal sin. Not to mention the just plain errors.
Anyway: as I say I haven't read the entire new paper yet, but there are already people ripping it to shreds. I don't really expect it will get much better reception than C13 did. But I do think it will be fun to watch what's coming.