'Consensus is collusion'

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

Posted by Coby Beck (Guest Contributor) at 9:06 AM on 16 Nov 2006

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.

Answer: The growing confluence of model results and the increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model may well look like sharing code or tweaking 'til things look alike. But it is also perfectly consistent with better and better understanding of the underlying problem, an understanding that is shared via scientific journals and research. This understanding is coming fast as we gather more and more historical and current data, all of which provides more testing material for model refinement.

Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.

For story: 'Consensus is collusion'
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Get Real

>> I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, >>

See the Tobacco industry. What is the oil industry worth nowdays?

>> but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.

Tell me why, tell me why, if temperature goes up, rainfall goes down ?

by Zarkov at 3:22 PM on 16 Nov 2006

very opaque

Zarkov,

You need to write more explicitly, I still have trouble understanding you points, ie what about the tobacco industry?

tell me why, if temperature goes up, rainfall goes down

Why do you think that? I don't think it is correct as a general rule.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

by Coby Beck at 12:25 AM on 19 Nov 2006

Why daddy

To first order the dew point increases

by EliRabett at 5:20 PM on 12 Dec 2006
[ Parent ]

Consensus and Collusion

An analogy I like to use with people who claim that climate skeptics are being unfairly ignored is the issue of HIV/AIDs.

You'll still find medical professionals out there who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDs. Does this mean that the rest of the medical profession has to pay attention to their theories or should doctors who agree with the medical consensus just get on with the business of fighting HIV?

Ivriniel

by Ivriniel at 11:48 AM on 24 Feb 2007

Show me a doctor who denies the HIV AIDS

connection, and I`ll show you someone who isn`t a qualified medical doctor.

Almost nobody denies the earth is most likely warming. What they disagree about is what is responsible: Methane, the sun, naturally occuring Co2, man-made, Co2, water vapor, farming, deforestation, etc etc, and to what extent each has an impact. They are all pretty much agreed upon to have a certain amount of influence on temperature. Nobody is pointing at little green aliens or anything equally ridiculous as being responsible. They are disagreeing about mutually agreed upon factors.

What to HIV/AIDS connection deniers point to, voodoo? God`s revenge?

IOW, your analogy is wrong.

by gravy at 12:16 AM on 21 Apr 2007

IPCC

gravy,

If you are at all interested in the science of this issue you really must review the IPCC TAR WG1 report, here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

It is the single best place to start. Some of the items you list as reasonable points of disagreemnt are frankly not far from the same category as little green men! (I am thinking specifically of the notion that the CO2 rise is of natural origin or that water vapour is driving climate change)

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

by Coby Beck at 8:20 PM on 21 Apr 2007

Consensus is as dangerous as Iraq's WMD's

Of all the silly arguments for global warming consensus is the same thing as truth simply takes the cake. Remember how everyone agreed Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction? How'd relying on that consensus turn out for us?

Breaking news: "A survey of people who get paid by governments to do climatology research shows that 95% of people think climatology reasearch is totally awesome and should receive even more public funding."

by rcglinsk at 12:53 PM on 24 Mar 2008

Consensus vs. scientific consensus

Scientists are held to--and hold themselves to--higher standards. Unpopular ideas, like handwashing, spread if they turn out to be true. The same is not true of politics. This is why there is a mismatch between the political consensus now (let's do nothing, or talk and do nothing) versus the scientific consensus. WMD was an example of a political consensus uncontaminated by actual facts.

Recall when there was no consensus about what killed the dinosaurs--asteroid strike or volcanoes. Now there's a consensus that it was an asteroid strike. What happened was not a popularity contest or some sort of political putsch, but rather a slow accumulation of facts supporting one side.

In any case, the argument here is not "consensus is the same as truth" but "consensus is not the same as conspiracy". You are responding to an argument that isn't being made. Science is always provisional, and no scientist would say otherwise.

by Voldemort at 8:49 PM on 24 Jun 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.