How many times have we heard the apocryphal statement about global warming that "the science is settled"? Is the debate really over? It depends on who is doing the debating, and what is supposed to have been settled. There have been many climate-change debates among scientists as well as non-scientists. We need to recognize the difference between a scientific debate and other forms of disagreement. Science has ground rules. Those who don't follow the rules are entitled to their opinions, but cannot legitimately claim to be participating in a scientific debate.
Before scientific results can be fully accepted, they must be subjected to peer review and published in a scholarly scientific journal. This is a necessary, but insufficient, condition (nobody is compelled to embrace the conclusions of a paper just because it has been refereed). This rule is not intended to create a "high priesthood" of scientists or keep others from participating. On the contrary, scientists welcome dissent and encourage contrarians to publish their ideas so they can be subjected to the same harsh scrutiny that is applied to conventional thought.
Peer review is designed to screen out material that is demonstrably wrong, flawed, or illogical. Non-specialists are not always able to spot errors quickly in a highly technical piece of work, so experts are recruited to make sure any mistakes are corrected and necessary documentation is provided before peer-reviewed science can be published. Think of this as a kind of standard for all scholarly papers.
In my line of work, I'm often asked to comment on various claims about climate change. The first thing I do when I read an editorial or blog entry is to check to see if the claims have been published in the scientific literature. If not, my response is usually this: "I don't see why I should bother to read it if the authors couldn't be bothered to put it through scientific peer review." My reasoning is not that such material is necessarily wrong. But without any scientific review I have no assurance that anyone has checked to see if the equations are right, data sources correctly cited, figures properly attributed, or other workers' conclusions fairly represented.
Nobody claims that the global warming debate has ended among editorial writers, media pundits, bloggers, and politicians. The calculation of the mass of CO2 produced from burning a gallon of gasoline was the subject of a vigorous debate on the Albuquerque Journal letters page a couple years ago. This is a question that a decent high school chemistry student should be able to answer, but the highly-opinionated letter writers were not able to resolve their differences--despite the fact that reaction stoichiometry is indeed settled science.
Likewise, a competent high school physics student understands how the greenhouse effect works, which is based on the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). This is also settled science. It has been known for over a hundred years that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its infrared opacity, and when this happens, more energy from sunlight enters the Earth's atmosphere than escapes. The atmosphere must heat up, on average. There is no scientific debate about this fact, and nobody has ever published a "zero-warming" theory to explain how it could be otherwise.
What is not settled is the degree of climate change. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature there is a healthy, open, honest, and vigorous scientific debate. The best scientific estimate of the amount of warming (when CO2 levels double, which is likely to happen this century) is about 6 ºF. There are those who disagree, and have published the basis for their disagreement. The most useful assessments are not limited to the best estimate, but include quantification of the uncertainty, which is one of the hallmarks of honesty in science. There is a broad range of possibility, from below 4 ºF to greater than 11 ºF.
One recent paper estimates a likelihood of about 2.5% that average temperature increases could exceed 14 ºF; a change that would probably lead to the collapse of global ecosystems, loss of civilization, and possible human extinction. There is no way to prove or disprove these quantitative estimates, other than to wait and see what happens. That said, it is hard to ignore a scholarly paper (emphasis on the word "scholarly") that gives longer odds for civilization than for a shuttle launch.
Recently, opinion pieces have been published that masquerade as scientific literature. Most notably is a document published by the Heartland Institute (a fossil-fuel-funded political pressure group) for an organization called "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" (NIPCC), a play on the name of the IPCC, which publishes summaries of mainstream peer-reviewed science. After reading a few sections of the document, I remembered a comment from a fellow scientist and friend of mine: "Pseudoscience is like spoiled food; you don't have to eat it all to know something is badly wrong. Just a few bites will do."
The authors' use of loaded words like "fearmonger" and "hype" were the first whiff of spoilage. Rhetorical devices are rarely if ever seen in a scholarly paper. This suspicion was borne out by close examination of figures re-plotted by NIPCC from peer-reviewed sources. The original data were mis-plotted, modified, and misrepresented. Important information was removed, and in at least one case, a data point was fabricated. The NIPCC report is an example of pseudoscholarship at its worst.
Just as serious a blunder was the unwillingness of the authors to concede any uncertainty in their beliefs. As scientists, we all have a professional obligation to be honest about what we know and what we do not know. As professionals whose work informs policy, we must always err on the side of caution. Climate change must be treated like all real but uncertain threats. To ignore that possibility is reckless.
For any debate to be called scientific, the entire spectrum of expert opinion must be taken into account. Two questions must always be asked of experts by policymakers and by the public: 1) How certain are you that you are correct? 2) What is the worst thing that can happen if you are wrong?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-ar5-graph-shows-ipcc-analysis-methodology-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/#more-75983
Also science understanding is not settled, either, one can learn a new principle and grasp a "settled" principle, on a higher more complete level: which will make the earlier understanding obsolete. Which has happened, already.
One discipline, has also been shown to be nowhere near enough to encapsulate the whole: When, for an instance, the precursors became known regarding earthquakes and were shown to those comfortable with electrodynamics, the responses ranged from "Holy S**t," to "why didn't they talk to us?"
I wasn't a child at the time, but I had no degree and had published no papers. I was attending a USAF electronics technical school and radar was being explained to us. I suggested in my ignorance that if an airplane was built with a pyramid shape the signal would bounce in the wrong direction and the plane would be invisible to radar. This brought laughter from the 'learned one' and I shrunk into my seat in embarrassment.
That was in early 1958. I could not possibly know what I was talking about, since I had no degree in such things.
I have always argued that civilization could advance more rapidly if they would just take seriously "that which comes out of the mouths of babes!"
The most educated man I have ever met was also rather stupid. He just had a fantastic memory!
California started its hydrogen highway program and so did Norway, even though that country has plenty of oil. Unfortunately when global climate change was getting more attention, so grew all those nonprofit interest groups and demanded their say. It also made the fossil fuel energy power brokers aware that they may lose their monopoly, so they also organized, with as result that we now have a cacophony of opinions, driven by special agendas, with as result the public does not know who or what to believe.
Sadly it also kicked the can down the street in solving the global climate crisis and it may take decades before we again will be back on the inevitable solution to create a hydrogen based energy economy, which will become obvious if we finally will evaluate all damages and benefits (tangible and intangible) of all offered solutions. Many will say what about cost? Oil solely used for lighting a century ago, used to be very expensive, until they start using gasoline (what used to be a waste product) for the internal combustion engine. When a government will establish such a priority, the same thing will happen and hydrogen will become cheaper.
Huffington Post is filled with posts (and some articles) from people who have a poor grasp of how science works. They treat science like a cafeteria where they select studies that confirm their biases. They cannot distinguish between news reports about scientific research and the scientific research itself. They cannot distinguish between actual experts on a particular topic and those who are merely relaying scientific knowledge. They are seemingly unaware of reputable sites from which to gather scientific information, relying on the mass media to inform them. They don't understand the peer-reviewed process or meta-analyses. They seem to resent expertise and are suspicious of scientific organizations and the crucial role of consensus in science.
All this is certainly a call to improve Americans' understanding of how science works, how we know what we know in science.
The argument outside of research seems to have three sides - 1) those predicting certain catastrophe; 2) those who want their cheap fuel, regardless of the consequences, and; 3) those intentionally lying about the issue to serve their own interests. What constructive progress can we make if we are not even arguing the same issue?
The real question outside of research should be about ethics. Sustaining life requires three basic resources - clean air, fresh water, and food. Additionally, one of the gravest consequences of climate change is its impact on the oceans and coastal communities. The ethical conversation should focus on how much risk we are willing to accept for ourselves and future generations for our own comfort and convenience.
"collapse of global ecosystems, loss of civilization, and possible human extinction"
Read again,
"One recent paper estimates a likelihood of about 2.5% that average temperature increases could exceed 14 ºF; a change that would probably lead to the collapse of global ecosystems, loss of civilization, and possible human extinction. There is no way to prove or disprove these quantitative estimates, other than to wait and see what happens. "
Me thinks he may being putting it forth to emphasize the importance of climate change and "fearmonger".
14 degrees F - the difference between the climate of NYC and Atlanta. Not a great thing, but as a worst case, I doubt it ends civilization.
Your point that 14 degrees F is "the difference between the climate of NYC and Atlanta" suggests that you have not grasped (or failed to understand) what is meant by the average "global" temperature increasing by that amount. Respectfully, your point is pointless because it is not relevant owing to your misunderstanding.
Having been in the environmental science area for many decades, I have watched many well funded environmental activist organizations (eNGO's) plant articles and provide biased information -- good for fundraising. I now feel that a lot of the scientific credibility issues relevant to the very real climate issue have been in the making long before the climate change issue became obvious.
Reviewing articles is hard work with no pay, but we still need to do a better job, especially on articles that are PC at the time.
Note these words: There is no way to prove or disprove these quantitative estimates, other than to wait and see what happens. - in other words there have been no empirical experiments to prove the AGW hypothesis. Every prediction is based upon computer models, and their inherent dificiencies.
Oso Politico, you have engaged in a common denier tactic, taking a partial quote out of context and misinterpreting what that quote says.
" in other words there have been no empirical experiments to prove the AGW hypothesis"
~~~This is a complete fabrication, the author of this article said no such thing and you are guilty of the very intellectual crimes the author was describing.
The point that you missed is not whether climate change is happening or not -- it is -- but the degree of change that will occur and the speed at which the change will occur.