The global warming non-consensus

Because of articles like the one below, sent to me by an internet friend (Alan A.), I still have serious doubts about the "global warming is our fault" assertion that has gained such a vocal political following.  [Note to Houston readers: keep reading; some of your local historical trivia is at the bottom of this post.]

If there's anything even approaching a consensus, it's on the the political dimension; according to the article, the science is apparently not even garnering a majority, let alone a consensus.  I remain skeptical, because I'm a strong supporter and advocate of the scientific method—which, as Galileo and others proved, is capable of eventually revealing the truth, while withstanding tremendous resistance from politicians and priests. 

The article is titled Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?, which I recommend reading all the way through.  Here is an excerpt that helps explain my continuing skepticism:

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. . .

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

That bears repeating: Scientific truths are not determined by a show of hands.  If that were not the case, we'd never have heard of Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein—or much of the contemporary evidence on the other side of the AGW debate, now begging for a hearing. 

The scientific jury is still out. 

==============
End notes:

The author of the article was S. Fred Singer.  Anyone interested in his credentials (...or, for that matter, anyone interested in finding material for an attack on him of the ad hominem or guilt-by-association variety) should start with his Wikipedia entry here. 

Commenters:  Please remember that ad hominem and guilt-by-association attacks are logical fallacies, regardless of their effectiveness in politics to dodge the issue at hand.  The best example of those tactics in my memory was a post-Watergate congressional race in Houston; here was the exchange as I heard it on the radio news:

Candidate A (a Democrat), to reporters:

My opponent looks, talks, and acts exactly like Richard Nixon.

Candidate B (a Republican), to reporters, when they told him of Candidate A's comment:

Oh jeez, he must be drunk again.

Comments

[Jason]

The debate should go beyond whether or not AGW is a significant factor. The proposed solutions should get much more scrutiny. Let's suppose AGW is a given. Many of the "green" solutions appear to be counter-productive and detrimental both economically and environmentally (assuming more CO2 is bad). Take the "eat local" movement. In this Cafe Hayek example (http://tinyurl.com/34chxa ), it creates more CO2 than eating globally.

My impression is that many in the environmental movement reject capitalism and lose the best methods of incentives and accounting. When they lose this, they have no objective indicators on whether they are achieving or hurting their goals.

[Counter Revolutionary]

Steve, DR Roger Pielke's site was one of the very best in providing a rational view of what was going on in the AGW discussions. Just recently shut down for new content and comments it is still there as an archive. Found here:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

It was an active discussion on his site that lead to the discovery of the rotten conditions of the land temperature stations. If you are unaware of them that site is here:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Above all Climate Science, Pielke's site, was an excellent counter point to the Real Climate pro-AGW content.

Pielke is not a skeptic, but a scientist espousing the scientific method. He has an excellent analysis of the IPCC methodology and content.

[Mike H]

I recommend this blog by a young Czech physicist. Much of the blog is devoted to peer reviewed skeptical GW articles. It's the first thing that convinced me there was not a true consensus on GW. I felt like it was possibly all hearsay since everyone that claimed there wasn't a consensus didn't have adequate proof, and most physicists I work with seem to believe in GW.

[Andrew Farmer]

While I agree that consensus doesn't necessarily prove something true, the point of your post seemed to lead to the idea that all discoveries are made against the grain by lone mavericks. While this may be the case with some stunning examples of history (like Einstein or Galileo), just because some scientist is 'fighting the man' doesn't mean he is right either.

The Manhattan Project and our early computers were each done by teams of scientists building on the modern (of the time) consensus in nuclear physics and computation. Einstein may have reinvented physics, but the people at the University of Pennsylvania that built the ENIAC didn't get there by rethinking how to square root numbers, they built on the consensus best way to do it digitally.

[Dave Justus]

Andrew,

Engineering is usually based on consensus. Developing a new theory rarely is.

Of course just because most people (or scientists) disagree doesn't make a theory true, but nearly every new theory (not just the sexy ones noted above) faces fierce opposition from established scientists. Largely that is a good thing, scientists should be skeptical when some says 'no it really works like this' but beyond that, few experts in ant field easily accept that their previous understanding of how things work was wrong.

[Steve]

CR: Thanks, that is an excellent site. Too bad it's been retired, but I'm glad he's leaving it up so I can browse the archives.

Mike H: Which blog are you referring to?

[goy]

"...the point of your post seemed to lead to the idea that all discoveries are made against the grain by lone mavericks..."

Andrew,

I respectfully submit that if you believe this was the point of the post, then you may have missed the real point.

Politically-motivated solutions to the impending disasters predicted as a result of AGW are never supported by their advocates through the use of actual science.

Instead we get nonsensical "reports" from wannabe global governance entities (http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/?p=214) and endless variations of the "consensus" justification for pouring money down the "Carbon Credits" hole and tearing down the advances of Western Civilization as we know it.

The point of the post was pretty clearly highlighted, and it's important because it's one of the basic principles that the Kyotozoans don't seem to get: (once again) Scientific truths are not determined by a show of hands.

[mark]

Kind of reminds me of the national debt. A few economist (the late William Vickrey, Mosler, Wray to name a few) go against the mainsteam, saying govt debt is an economic necessity in a modern fiat money system with floating exchange rate regimes. As for me, I still believe the world is flat, and I want to pay higher taxes and have my U.S. savings bonds taken away to spur economic growth.

[Steve]

mark: Good one; and you have plenty of company, including belief in a flat earth, not just the masochism.

[rufus]

This Guy:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/

has done some great global warming skepicizing. Not Rabid, but very logical, and easy to read.

[Mike H]

Sorry, just realized I forgot the link to that blog, here it is.

http://motls.blogspot.com/

[Gene Hoffman]

Steve and all,

Let me second Coyote Blog on climate.

His take is that warming is happening and it probably has something to do with increasing the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, warming is pretty small and will only get smaller as the system is a negative feedback loop. In any event, burning less to create CO2 is probably a good thing, but the rest of the supposed policy is bunk and the IPCC future estimates are about as good as a Soviet 5 year plan...

-Gene

[Steve]

Thanks Gene; badastronomy.com backs up that take on the science: warming is probably happening, how much is unknown, how much is caused by humans vs sun vs other factors is unknown. With so many unknowns, and so much of the current science dependent on secret computer models (at least one of them at taxpayer-funded NASA, ironically) built by scientists unwilling to open them up to peer review, I have to suspect other motives at play unrelated to the search for truth within the scientific method. The other motives I suspect are at play include power politics and government-grant cronyism, both of which depend to a great extent on the "show of hands".

[PseudoNoise]

As long as we're using Wikipedia:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus