What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

@Golem @WillReadmore

What do the climate scientists say? What percentage supports AGW/ACC, and what percentage doesn't? I know there are all kinds of technical ramifications I just want the essential conclusion

If I understand you, Jack Hays (and/OR other non supporters of AGW) correctly, the supporters of AGW, those in the peanut gallery so to speak, they claim that a majority of climate scientists support AGW. As I understand it, they are claiming it's something like 97%, is this the claim?

If I understand you (and/OR the non AGW supporters) You (and/OR they) claim that that stat is only on that portion which 'took a position'. I believe you are contending that if we look at the entire body surveyed, including those that did not take a position, and compare those to those that did, the percentage of pro-AGW scientists is a lot less (compared to the entire body surveyed) ? Is that what you are saying?

If that is true ( I'm asking, I don't know) isn't the more important statistic to look at the percentages from the group that took a position?

I ask because if someone refuses to take a position, we don't know why they didn't take it. Without that knowledge, that stat has no probative value, right?

As I understand it, in the group that took a position, it's something like 97% of Climate Scientists supporting AGW/ACC

Am I correct? (I don't know, just asking).

 

You are of course free to cherish your thoughtless prejudice as you like.

 

I have no idea. I consider that entire line of argument to be irrelevant.

 

Where was he wrong?

 

Ah, but he wasn't.

 

A consensus means there are many different thoughts on the subject, meaning you are taking the best educated guess out of the "consensus" and totally ignoring the ones that are outside the "consensus" with every single one of those being done by experts in the field. In other words, you are denying what some experts in the field are saying. How many times in our history has the "consensus" been wrong? Just one example is, in the old days, everyone used to think the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe itself. At the time, scientists refused to accept the opinions of anyone who dared stray out of the "consensus". They were dismissed as being wrong because their opinion was not the "consensus".

How do they know rising global temps are "abnormal" when it has happened many times before, even before man? And don't give me any of that uncausation crap about CO2 being higher since human activity. You can't prove that that is not just a coincidence. It could be just a coincidence.

You say this "abnormal" increase in the Earth's surface temperature is "caused mainly by human activity". That statement itself means that there are other factors involved other than human activity and that also means that these other factors are also "abnormal". So, that kind of blows a hole in your theory that normal is before human activity and abnormal is after human activity because you just admitted that the "abnormal" increases aren't all due to man. However, if you want to change your definition of abnormal to just meaning due to human activity then you can't be saying that Earth's surface temp increases are caused mainly by human activity. You have to say that all (100%) of our "abnormal" temp increases are solely due to man. But, then that flies in the face of your "consensus" of experts who admit that human activity is caused mainly by human activity, along with other factors.

 

I'm not talking about "consensus". I'm talking about scientific consensus. Re-read the paragraph that starts with "Scientific Consensus..." in bold to understand the difference. As far as a "scientific consensus", I can't recall ANY instance in which it has been wrong since the start of Modern Science (typically attributed to Galileo). Which doesn't mean that it can never BE wrong. Just that it hasn't happened.

You're completely confused! It was the CHURCH (most notably, the Catholic Church) that claimed that Earth was the center of the universe. Science (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, ...and others) claimed otherwise.

But if you want to try your hand again at undermining science, go for it!

We're talking about THIS instance. And they know because it has been determined by thousands of studies over the course of more than 100 years. Link is in the OP.

Huh? In what conceivable way does that statement mean that?

Scientists know with a very high degree of accuracy how much each factor contributes to the warming. And the abnormal long-term warming is due to human activity. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

AGW is caused by human activity. If a volcano erupts (for example) the eruption can add to the warming. It's normal for a volcano to explode, but the effects become longer-term because the greenhouse gases generated by human activity trap more of the heat than if those gases hadn't accumulated to current levels.

So, in short, human activity makes the heat generated by natural activity more prevalent. And this is one of the factors that is considered "abnormal".

 

That is a false statement betraying ignorance of the history of science. The Ptolemaic System was the scientific consensus for centuries.
Ptolemaic System - The Galileo Project | Science
http://galileo.rice.edu › Science


Ptolemy used three basic constructions, the eccentric, the epicycle, and the equant. An eccentric construction is one in which the Earth is placed outside the ...

". . . Aristotelian cosmology and Ptolemaic astronomy entered the West, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as distinct textual traditions. The former in Aristotle's Physics and On the Heavens and the many commentaries on these works; the latter in the Almagest and the technical astronomical literature that had grown around it, especially the work of Islamic astronomers working in the Ptolemaic paradigm. In the world of learning in the Christian West (settled in the universities founded around 1200 CE), Aristotle's cosmology figured in all questions concerned with the nature of the universe and impinged on many philosophical and theological questions. Ptolemy's astronomy was taught as part of the undergraduate mathematical curriculum only and impinged only on technical questions of calendrics, positional predictions, and astrology.

Copernicus's innovations was therefore not only putting the Sun in the center of the universe and working out a complete astronomical system on this basis of this premise, but also trying to erase the disciplinary boundary between the textual traditions of physical cosmology and technical astronomy."

 

I'm not making an argument I'm just asking a question

 

That's fine. It's a question in which I have no interest and about which I have no opinion.

 

I'm talking about Modern Science. Focus!

Modern Science, i.e. experimental science, is what tells us that AGW is real. The father of which is considered to be Galileo. Galileo shot down the heliocentric model. But that doesn't mean that the Ptolemaic planetary system was wrong. It was a model with good predictive power for what it was designed to do. Galileo's was just better.

No wonder you're a science denialist. You are actually still stuck in Ancient Aristotelian Science. And it's the MODERN scientific method that tells us that AGW is real.

 

LOL. A consensus is a consensus is a consensus and it has been proven many times in the past that the "scientific" consensus was wrong.

 

No! Right or wrong, Science uses it's own terminology. You'll know because usually they precede the terms with "Scientific ..."... as in "Scientific Theory" or "Scientific Framework" or "Scientific Evidence"... which are not the same as the colloquial terms "theory", "framework" or "evidence"...

I know this sometimes confuses people who are unfamiliar with science but... it is what it is...

 

When you are using a "scientific" consensus, you are purposely denying what some experts in the field said, just because it is not in line with the "consensus". You are a denier of expert science opinion.

 

Because a scientific consensus has NOTHING to do with what experts say or opine. The only thing that matters in science is what they can PROVE! And the ONLY way to prove anything in science is through peer-reviewed studies.

NOW do you understand the difference between a "consensus" and a "scientific consensus"?

 

I was refuting your uninformed claim about 16th and 17th century science. Your claim remains refuted.

 

That's a good answer for a sixth grader.
"As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice—there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community... this issue of paradigm choice can never be unequivocally settled by logic and experiment alone."
— Thomas S. Kuhn
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), 93.

 

Your post proves that you not only don't understand modern science, but not even ancient science.

The Ptolemaic System is as valid today, as it was in the 2nd Century. It makes an inaccurate assumption. But, even so, it works! Assumptions are NOT science.

 

It's a sixth grade level question. Posters who don't know this are typically lost with seventh grade level answers.

Look at you, for example...

Oh... and you thought this meant that they can be unequivocally settled WITHOUT logic and experiment, right?

Hilarious!

 

I don't know. But it makes no difference. I know that 100% of the peer-reviewed studies published in the last 20 years support AGW, as well as 100% of the National Science Academies in the world have come out with statements alerting about it. Opinions (even that of scientists) can be bought and sold... peer-reviewed studies have to prove what they claim. And they are published so every scientist in the world can look for errors. And it's a pretty big deal when they are found.

 

Your argument fails all around. To take the last first, logic and experiment are necessary but not sufficient. You might want to study necessity and sufficiency.
Your statement about Ptolemy only reveals a lack of knowledge.
For all your bluster, it seems you don't understand your own thread topic.
I wish you growth.

 

Well, it's yours. Meanwhile, here's something to consider.
"The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is far from a cumulative process, one achieved by an articulation or extension of the old paradigm. Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals, a reconstruction that changes some of the field's most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications. During the transition period there will be a large but never complete overlap between the problems that can be solved by the old and by the new paradigm. But there will also be a decisive difference in the modes of solution. When the transition is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods, and its goals."
— Thomas S. Kuhn
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), 84-5.

 

Well, they haven't proven anything other than the Earth is warming and that it is coincidentally happening at the same time as human activity. You can't prove it is anything more than just a coincidence, no matter how hard you try. I can also prove that the Earth is warming at the very same time our sun is getting older but, again, that may just be a coincidence. Look at all the times the scientific consensus was wrong when it came to the pandemic. First Fauci said there was no need to wear masks. The scientific community also said it was not spread by air droplets. The scientific consensus has been wrong numerous times.

 

Of course not sufficient. Peer-reviewed publication, for example, is also necessary. The Scientific Method is much much more than logic and experiment. That might be new to you, but not to anybody else. In fact, in the context in which you provided that quote you appear to believe that science can exist WITHOUT logic and experiment. And it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

You keep quoting Khun, and again and again demonstrate that you don't understand what you're quoting. No wonder you can't make an argument in your own words.

As for Ptolemy, we can't expect to have a serious debate with you if you don't understand what science is. Even though ancient science, Ptolemy's equations still do what they did for centuries: predict the position of the planets at any given time. Just that the ASSUMPTION (an assumption is not science and has never been science) that the Sun was the center of the universe made them less accurate than Kepler's and Galileo's.

But... you know... if you don't understand the topic, you can always throw in a quote that you don't understand either. So you should do that instead....

 

You are debating with yourself because your renditions of my points are made up by you -- not the first time you have posted falsehoods, as you know. I'm content to let the record of our exchange speak for itself.