Global warming and scientific consensus

[Old Greg]

Thought we could do with a global warming thread.

To those of you who reject the scientific consensus and take a contrarian position: do you take the same approach to medicine and consult homeopaths and reject vaccinations for your kids?

Am interested in your thoughts on scientific consensus and man-made global warming. I think that there are similarities in the arguments made against the vested interests of the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry.

[DimPrawn]

Thought we could do with a global warming thread.

To those of you who reject the scientific consensus and take a contrarian position: do you take the same approach to medicine and consult homeopaths and reject vaccinations for your kids?

Am interested in your thoughts on scientific consensus and man-made global warming. I think that there are similarities in the arguments made against the vested interests of the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry.

I throw bread at passing planes.

[Mich the Tester]

What is a 'scientific consensus'?

Personally I'd say that if lots of scientists think something is true, that's not a scientific consensus, it's an appeal to authority. However, if the results of lots of experiments and empirical evidence point in the same direction, then we have a scientific consensus. I don't know if that's the case for AGW, but I think it may be.

[BlasterBates]

Thought we could do with a global warming thread.

To those of you who reject the scientific consensus and take a contrarian position: do you take the same approach to medicine and consult homeopaths and reject vaccinations for your kids?

Am interested in your thoughts on scientific consensus and man-made global warming. I think that there are similarities in the arguments made against the vested interests of the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry.

You're in the minority Greg, get with it. There is a consensus here.

[Bagpuss]

It's better to describe it as an overwhelming body of evidence. Science works on weight evidence and considering the probability of false positives. Journalism however works by attributing anecdotal or selected evidence to help justify a pre determined emotively driven conclusion. This is how the general public ends up confused. The reporting of science is pretty shocking and is leading to a misunderstanding and scepticism of science and scientists. However, If the same people were ill they certainly wouldn't consult a journalist (or perhaps they would).

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

[GreenLabel]

Thought we could do with a global warming thread.

To those of you who reject the scientific consensus and take a contrarian position: do you take the same approach to medicine and consult homeopaths and reject vaccinations for your kids?

Am interested in your thoughts on scientific consensus and man-made global warming. I think that there are similarities in the arguments made against the vested interests of the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry.

I work on a case-by-case basis. Some stuff that we're told makes sense, and I believe it. There are some things that we are told, however, that are carp. Fat, for instance, isn't bad for you. Neither is red meat. I simply find the notion that the tiny amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere has a devastating effect on the climate as a whole completely absurd.

It just doesn't add up.

[Bagpuss]

I work on a case-by-case basis. Some stuff that we're told makes sense, and I believe it. There are some things that we are told, however, that are carp. Fat, for instance, isn't bad for you. Neither is red meat. I simply find the notion that the tiny amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere has a devastating effect on the climate as a whole completely absurd.

It just doesn't add up.

I think that is the whole point it does add up when the system was in a form of equilibrium. You put something out of balance and you get consequences that is the argument.



Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

[BlasterBates]

I'd be wary of any treatment where the results of the clinical trial had involved "hiding the decline", or when the Doctor gave you a list of side effects and then changed his mind half way through the treatment. I might also be somewhat sceptical if an emeritus profesor of medicine were to describe it as a scam.

Here is Professor Judith Curry's (an eminent climate scientist) view on "Hiding the decline"

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

[shaunbhoy]

I think that is the whole point it does add up when the system was in a form of equilibrium. You put something out of balance and you get consequences that is the argument.

If in this instance, by system you mean the planet's climate, then it has never really been in a form of equilibrium. So it would be impossible to quantify when, or even how, any perceived imbalance may have occurred.

HTH

[Bagpuss]

I'd be wary of any treatment where the results of the clinical trial had involved "hiding the decline", or when the Doctor gave you a list of side effects and then changed his mind half way through the treatment. I might also be somewhat sceptical if an emeritus profesor of medicine were to describe it as a scam.

Here is Professor Judith Curry's (an eminent climate scientist) view on "Hiding the decline"

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

It wasn't hidden, it was mentioned how they had adjusted the data in the literature, it's quite normal to smooth data for models that's how you fit them. The whole issue is another example of how the media misreported something as being controversial and dishonest when it was nothing of the sort. NASA has no problem with these data, perhaps next you'll be telling us next that man didn't land on the moon because you read it in the Sunday Sport.