There is a strong scientific consensus supporting the scientific Theory of Global Warming and these key points:
Table 1: Professional Societies and Major Relevant Research Institutions on whether humanity is driving climate change
Consider a simple truth about the incredibly complexity of issues, interconnections, and feedback patterns/cycles in these interactions of energy and climate change issues:
anyone who asserts that they know everything about energy and climate change, definitively, and knows every single answer is, well, simply not someone worth listening to about these complex domains.
Thus, a critical skill set is developing a sense as to who to trust and who is untrustworthy for consideration.
And, this "skill set' can be used as a guide for where one might have uncertainty.
Greg Craven, youtube star extraordinaire and author of the highly recommended What's the worst that could happen?, laid a hierarchy of authorities for considering a difficult subject area where one might not be expert but where you wish to figure out an answer via the thoughts and opinions of others. Quite roughly, in order, you could have from high (implicit) to lower (need to be confirmed) trust as follows:
And, if an institution speaks in a way that contradicts its normal bias (like a tobacco company stating that smoking tobacco causes cancer or a fossil-fuel company stating that CO2 is a major threat to humanity and we need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels), then it should be given stronger weight.
Craven lays out why professional organizations are at the top of the credibility spectrum:
professional societies are organizations that exist not to advance a particular agenda but to simply serve the communication and training needs of a particular profession. ... With these groups, bias and political leanings are going to be small as can be expected in any human endeavor.
The level of expertise is fairly high because these groups are made up of people who know more about the field than anyone else; furthermore, fur such an association to come out with a statement, most of the members would need to agree with it, so what you're getting is general agreement from a whole bunch of experts -- no small thing. And, the longer an organization has been around or the mroe prestigious it is, the bigger the reputation it has to protect. You can be fairly confident that an organization has been quite thorough in making sure it doesn't say something that later makes it look silly.
Now, "argument from authority" is a touchy subject. Just because the American Medical Association says today that X causes Y disease doesn't mean that it won't turn out that further research will uncover that X is unrelated to Y. Even so, when trying to figure out how to avoid Y disease, today, would we find it more likely that the AMA or a community glee club would have more relevant information and advice? "Authority" doesn't mean certainty but, as Craven lays out, there are reasons to give some credence to such perspectives.
To apply this hierarchy of credibility, the first section might be laid out like this:
Table 2: Structuring a Table re authorities re humanity have a role in driving climate change
Table 1 above is an attempt at filling in Table 2.
And, with that truly independent association of people who have zero interest in perpetuation of a fossil fuel economy standing out as a clear exception, how does the Association of American Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) introduce its recommendations about climate change?
In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.
And, for those who still are wondering 'but what about all those scientists who challenge that consensus,' spend a few moments with Peter Sinclair looking at 32,000 (pseudo-)scientists challenging those institutions in the first column:
Note: This is a modified reposting of Considering Institutional Authorities and Climate Change.
MUST READ! Massively powerful LA Times editorial on climate science education.
Follow A. Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/A_Siegel
Bill McKibben: The Great Carbon Bubble
Peter H. Gleick: The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Bill Chameides: The State of the Union's Climate Education
James Hoggan: Denial of Facts Is No Way to Understand Science
Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
The Physical Science behind Climate Change: Scientific American
FANNED
8.21. Each country should develop integrated strategies to maximize compliance with its laws and regulations relating to sustainable development, with assistance from international organizations and other countries as appropriate. The strategies could include:
(a) Enforceable, effective laws, regulations and standards that are based on sound economic, social and environmental principles and appropriate risk assessment, incorporating sanctions designed to punish violations, obtain redress and deter future violations;
(b) Mechanisms for promoting compliance;
(c) Institutional capacity for collecting compliance data, regularly reviewing compliance, detecting violations, establishing enforcement priorities, undertaking effective enforcement, and conducting periodic evaluations of the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement programmes;
(d) Mechanisms for appropriate involvement of individuals and groups in the development and enforcement of laws and regulations on environment and development.
A Political Issue for 2000 - and Beyond
Your list is a political roll call of organizations working with the UN IPCC. Attached is an explanation of the politics of this list from the year 2000.
CLIMATE POLICY - FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000 - and Beyond
(In particular refer to page 19/20: 'Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.' Here examples are given of 'substantial changes ... made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed. (The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)
Here is a description of the politics still very much alive in the year 2012
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/ipcc-zero-order-draft-files-found-and-put-back-online/
The Video Watts tried to ban:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk
About five minutes in the really fun part begins. Of course the info about the Heartland Institute just before that is also very illuminating...
But the best is at 7:00 to 7:35 or so:
--Of the 29,500 data sets, 90% showed changes 'in the direction expected as a response to warming...The lesson here is that birds, lakes, rivers, fish and glaciers have no political agenda, but climate deniers, and their wealthy sponsors, do.--
Speaking of wealthy sponsors...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity/2012/02/21/anthony-watts-may-have-some-splainin-to-do/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/11/205330/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/
Enjoy your link to the truth.
The whole point is to acknowledge that one can never know "the Truth, Reality." We can only make our best guess. (In fact, that is really all that science does—gives us our best guess. And it's been wonderfully successful at that.) As lay people who do not have the training and experience to understand such a complex topic, what we have at hand to base our best guess on is the aggregate of the information from the people who *do* have the training and expertise. Hence, the credibility spectrum.
To me it helps tremendously to see it visually. Someone illegally scanned my book, but I might as well point you to it to illustrate. The scans are here: https://sites.google.com/site/jackalopetexan/scans-of-greg-craven-s-book-what-s-the-worst-that-could-happen
A “naked” version of the credibility spectrum I proposed (containing the categories, but no statements) is on page 84 (in Chp. 4).
The “dressed” version (with the statements from the most significant sources I found on both sides) is on page 183 (in Chp. 10).
I encourage anyone who has read the book to share their own credibility spectrum (along with the sources you’ve place on it) at gregcraven.org.
Cheers,
Greg Craven
Creator, “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See”
Author, “What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Keep up the good work!
Whoops. I just discovered this post, and it looks like I missed the boat on the discussion. For what it's worth, as the author of the book referenced in the article above, I’d like to add to what Mr. Siegel has written about credibility and a “credibility spectrum.” It hopefully may help in the discussions here about which source is more credible than which.
In my book "What's the Worst That Could Happen?" I suggested composing your own credibility spectrum not as a way to tell "Who's right" in a head-to-head, nor even "Who to believe." (The laws of physics don't care about our beliefs. They only care about our actions.)
Instead, I suggested using a credibility spectrum as a way to visually organize multiple statements from multiple sources all into one big picture. Then you take a look at the overall picture, seeing where there is density and where there is scarcity in the visual. (See links below.) You then use that overall assessment to guide your risk assessment about what--if anything--to do. (Again, that’s the only thing that the physical world cares about.)
(continued in Part 2 of 2)
and Storming
is Simple
and Complex
and True!
Now that Heartlands agenda to make up more propaganda for the re-education of our school children has been exposed they must be in damage control big time!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
We are in a natural warming period and it has been very beneficial to mankind. Longer growing seasons and more arable land has been the consequence. It has allowed mankind to really flourish. Believe me warming is one hell of a lot better than cooling. If mankind’s activity is contributing anything in my opinion it has been negligible. The planet is simply doing what it is going to do.
As I see it is there are a lot of people making money off of manmade global warming. Sadly this includes all those much ballyhooed scientists! I don’t know why I’m the only one who sees this but if they disprove manmade global warming they lose all their grant money. They have no incentive. Keep that in mind the next time you read their dire predictions.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Temps were actually declining for the past 8,000 years or so, until they started climbing, right around the time of the industrial revolution. And current temps have not simply "rebounded" from the little ice age, they've shot well above what they were before it.
If you think scientists became scientists because they wanted to get rich, then I really don't know what to say to you. It's laughable actually. I've never seen a researched in a Lambo, have you?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
Also, "proponent side" is a term that truly gets me. People (self-proclaimed "skeptics") often write "global warming proponent". Other than people who (for example) shallowly say that they they like warming because they hate cold (why are they living in Minnesota?), I don't know anyone who "wants" global warming. I would be thrilled if the scientific consensus is proved wrong (even as the substantive basis for the core consensus grows stronger with (essentially) every passing day) since that would (greatly) improve the future prospects for my nation and my children.
Now, Craven's "What's the worst that can happen?" fits right into this and should be a pleasure for the real skeptic. If you're truly 'skeptical' but open to the idea that the scientific community (consensus) is correct, you'd be strongly supportive of 'Least Regret' strategies (energy efficiency, clean energy, better zoning/land use, etc ...) which would improve economic performance, improve national security, improve health, create jobs while, oh by the way, reducing atmospheric impacts from human activity. And, if the political consensus catches up to the scientific consensus, these 'no regret' strategy paths can provide a basis for accelerated/expanded action to have a more dramatic impact on reducing humanity's contribution to the mounting risks of catastrophic climate chaos.
theory of plate tectonics
germ theory of disease
theory of relativity
all a bunch of unproven, made up mumbo jumbo, right?
A nice discussion (for the open-minded who want to learn) here: http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html "As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."
"This warming will create significant harm if left unchecked."
The presupposition that it can be checked, presumptively by human action, requires further development. The BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) project provides discussion as to the difficulties of analyzing temperature increases, so I am cautious about this point. I feel that it is prudent and useful to implement policies and develop technology to reduce all possible contributions to climate disruption. This would include particulate emission reduction, reversing deforestation, efficient farming techniques (just turning soil emits substantial CO2) and dampening rapid and unsustainable population growth among others.
There are many more predictions from the so called 'consensus' that have been wrong. How many times can you be wrong but still claim you have the scientific upper hand? Or is it okay blatantly lie and say 'global warming is happening faster than previously thought' every three months, but continue to push the goal posts back on failed predictions?
Failed predictions, time and time again.
At first, people will propose all sorts of challenging alternatives (as I did) like solar, wind and its requirement for a large amount of extra capacity and storage, however, we need build the source with the best EROEI, and a transportation plan void of liquid fuels!
These are advanced nuclear and lots of electric mini rail.
Let's get the word out before it's too late!
And, well, I don't see that there is a single source with "the" best EROEI. Solar PV, for example, makes tremendous sense (already) in areas with good sun and reliant on oil for much of their electricity (e.g., Hawaii) while not nearly as sensible in EROEI terms in areas with mediocre sun and existing low-cost clean electricity (such as the US Northwest ...). We can play this against all cleaner energy sources -- wind turbines great in areas with good wind and transmission lines, lousy in areas with mediocre wind. Etc ... Re electricity, an outline concept that I wrote years ago that might be of interest: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/08/01/america-can-break-its-coal-addiction-or-no-coal-isnt-necessary/
Consensus is an extremely pernicious development that should be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agree on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Consensus has nothing whatever to do with science. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator how happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke from with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
The greatest advances in science in the past centuries have been from scientist who broke from consensus and were ridiculed and dismissed for it.
The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, migraine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Consensus is invoked in situations where the science is not solid enough. Those who state that man is the largest contributor to climate change should not use “consensus” as proof of their claim. The science is far from settled and anyone who claims otherwise has an agenda. That applies to those who support and those who refute anthropogenic global warming.