Consensus Science?

[applecorped]

Is Global Warming based on "consensus science" or undisputable proven fact or a combination?

www.cap.ca/pic/archives/47.6(1991)/editorial.html+consensus+science&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

"Has the scientific method lost its relevance through abuse (as in pathological science) or inapplicability (as in precautionary and consensus science)? Are we returning to an Aristotelian view of nature where the whole is believed to be greater than or not understandable in terms of its component parts? "

 

[GodMark2]

There is no such thing as 'undisputable proven fact' in science.

There are, however, theories that explain all available evidence, and that have correctly predicted additional events and/or correlations. The theory that Global warming is happening satisfies that criteria. So does the theory that CO2 emissions are responsible for that warming. So does the theory that human activity is responsible for increasing CO2 emissions drastically in the last century.

Consensus is not important. Evidence is. If you have a better theory that explains all available evidence in a consistent manner, scientists the world over would love to hear it. If you have evidence that contradicts a current theory, scientists the world over would love to hear it. If, however, your theory doesn't account for all the evidence the old one does, or doesn't correctly predict new correlations , or simply introduces more unknown variables, scientists the world over will simply ignore it as inferior.

Works for any theory.

 

[applecorped]

Thank you. Can you point me to most respected/accepted theory or theories in support of GW and/or AGW.

 

[Dancing David]

There are plenty of threads here which will aquaint you with the topic.

You can start here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

and here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html

I am sure some other POVs will be presented.

 

[applecorped]

Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

There is also this thread that i started;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117917

 

[sol invictus]

Consensus is not important. Evidence is. If you have a better theory that explains all available evidence in a consistent manner, scientists the world over would love to hear it. If you have evidence that contradicts a current theory, scientists the world over would love to hear it. If, however, your theory doesn't account for all the evidence the old one does, or doesn't correctly predict new correlations , or simply introduces more unknown variables, scientists the world over will simply ignore it as inferior.

Works for any theory.

I agree with most of that, but not with the first sentence. Consensus is of course important, because without it nothing will ever get done, and because it is a valid indicator with which non-experts can evaluate the strength of the evidence.

There are many cases in which scientists genuinely and honestly disagree over which theory better describes the available evidence. One way to tell when that happens is to notice that there is no consensus. The converse is also true - when the vast majority of the experts in the field agree on something, they do so because there is very compelling evidence for it.

In the case of AGW there is a nearly universal consensus among climate scientists, and so the only alternative to accepting it is to believe in a vast conspiracy intent on harming the global economy by imposing unnecessary restrictions on greenhouse gases, or something equally stupid.

 

[applecorped]

There is also this thread that i started;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117917

Thanks again.

 

[mhaze]

Is Global Warming based on "consensus science" or undisputable proven fact or a combination?

www.cap.ca/pic/archives/47.6(1991)/editorial.html+consensus+science&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

"Has the scientific method lost its relevance through abuse (as in pathological science) or inapplicability (as in precautionary and consensus science)? Are we returning to an Aristotelian view of nature where the whole is believed to be greater than or not understandable in terms of its component parts? "

You mean this link:
http://www.cap.ca/pic/archives/47.6(1991)/editorial.html

Answer: Not a consensus, but the alleged existence of one, coupled with heavy vested political interests and the emergence of environmentalism as religion.

An Aristotelian view? That is far simpler and straight forward.

 

[Spud1k]

The question of climate science being based on consensus is a bit iffy; you may as well ask the same thing about evolutionary science. There are plenty of aspects of climate science that conform to the conventional ideas of scientific method and plenty of things that climate scientists do and don't agree on. If you ask the question if there is consensus on AGW being significant, then amongst the people who know what they're talking about, there is a consensus (a few noisy individuals on the fringe aside). If you're asking if there's a way of testing it in the traditional scientific sense of the word, it's a bit difficult considering the fact that the system under investigation isn't exactly something that fits into a test tube. But still, a lot of people would claim it is a proven theory to within a certain level of confidence (90% is the one most commonly banded around).

But anyhoo, it would be nice if we could make climate predictions with absolute certainty, but we can't. Given the urgency of the situation and what's at stake, we have to instead work with best estimates. Some purists from other disciplines don't like that, but it's not like they're offering any better way of doing it. It's a similar situation as with weather forecasts; that too isn't an exact science, but if a weatherman says there's a high probability of rain, it's a good idea to take an umbrella to work.

 

[mhaze]

....a lot of people would claim it is a proven theory to within a certain level of confidence (90% is the one most commonly banded around).....But anyhoo, it would be nice if we could make climate predictions with absolute certainty....

Actually, your IPCC friends have made climate predictions with 100% certainty -they've hindcasted the past. We call that slugging variables until the curve fit is okay. It's that thingy called "predicting the future" where they don't do too well....

 

[Spud1k]

Actually, your IPCC friends have made climate predictions with 100% certainty -they've hindcasted the past.

My bad. I should have said 'forecast' rather than 'predict'.

We call that slugging variables until the curve fit is okay.

Sorry, but that statement is quite simply wrong. Climate models are all physical, with parametrised inputs done at the process end, not forcing it to fit global data (to do so would require a comical amount of computer time). In fact, in the case of sensitivity studies (e.g. climateprediction.net), the opposite is true in that variables are slugged with the express purpose of seeing what causes things go nuts.

It's that thingy called "predicting the future" where they don't do too well....

Really? Misrepresented graphs aside, I've yet to hear what's wrong with the following statement:

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.