Global Warming Critics Gather
And the Washington Post reports about it. As most of you will know, I’m not exactly a global warming critic. On the other hand, I’m not an expert either, so I rely on experts to inform me about this matter. Even when those experts say that humans don’t cause or increase global warming / there’s not much we can do about it. Yes, I’m open-minded like that.
But I think that it’s safe to say that the consensus (and that’s important in science) is that global warming is: a) very real and b) made worse by human activity. Most experts believe this, many of them have written extensive researches on it.
It pains me too see many conservatives ignoring the ‘consensus’ on this subject, instead of leading on this issue. It’s happening, conservatives would be wise to accept that but to show what makes conservatives conservative. Not ignoring inconvenient truths, but being cool and rational, and advocating a cautious approach.
There’s no use in becoming overly emotional. We should look very carefully to this issue and we should advocate policies that work and that don’t ruin our economies. Many progressives have a somewhat different approach, shall we say, so this is definitely an issue conservatives can ‘own.’
Despite all that, I think it’s important to listen to the other side and / or to treat them with respect. But I couldn’t help but laugh at the description of the meeting in the WaPo:
Several climate scientists and environmental advocates poked fun at the meeting. Frank O’Donnell, who heads the watchdog group Clean Air Watch, said the conference “looks like the climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand. They seem to have tried to find every last skeptic on Earth and put them in one hotel off Broadway.”
Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said he was not surprised that roughly 500 participants had gathered at the meeting. “I’m sure that the flat Earth society had a few final meetings before they broke up.”
And Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer said that with the media and many politicians now ignoring the climate skeptics, “they have to get together to talk to each other, because nobody else is talking to them.”
Cheap shots of course, and not very respectful, but funny as heck.
But I think that it’s safe to say that the consensus (and that’s important in science) is that global warming is: a) very real and b) made worse by human activity.
Consensus is not at all important in science.
If there are 1000 scientists who believe x and 1 who believes y and y is correct then all the consensus in the world doesn’t matter at all. What matters in science is being right, not being part of the biggest group.
There’s a reasonable Wikipedia article on the notion of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus">scientific consensus</a> and it opens with the statement: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method…"
Global warming critics might be in the majority and enjoy the consensus of most climate scientists but this does not make them right. Of course, this should not imply that the sceptics are necessarily correct, either.
Science should recognise science and not consensus no matter what the guys quoted in the WaPo think.
Good point, Dylan. Consensus is important in politics, not in science. In fact in science, it’s very important to never use consensus as a basis for accepting a matter as resolved; contrarians are all important, and the number of people who believe X hypothesis to be true is completely irrelevant as long as there are facts which might support a different hypothesis or undermine the basis for hypothesis X.
There is no historical data that supports the premise that human activity has any significant effect on global average temperature. The observation of glaciers melting may look dramatic on TV but does not show that human activity is the cause. There is, however, substantial evidence (besides the precipitous temperature drop in Jan 2008) that atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not significantly influence global average temperature. You can check out the global warming issue yourself. Credible websites are included in my post at http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/to-those-who-will-fight/#comments