Depends on Your Definition of “Consensus”
September 1st, 2007 by Wyatt
One of the foundational elements of those who argue for human-caused global warming is that there is a “scientific consensus” about that idea. The whole point is to frame the human-causation as undeniable fact and steer the discussion to how to change it. If it’s not human-caused, then there is no guilt to fuel the movement and the idea that we may not be able to alter any warming has to be addressed.
This blog entry at DailyTech by Michael Asher seems to weaken the consensus argument. Worse, for those in Al Gore’s camp, science seems to be moving in exactly the wrong direction for their ideas. Asher nails it exactly here:
Of 528 total papers [From 2004 to Feb 2007] on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
But, he gets more specific. Of course, there is no reason to do anything about global warming unless it leads to dramatic and negative effects. So, how many of these papers continue to warn about catastrophic results?
In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. [Emphasis from the original]
Huh. It would seem to me that while I don’t believe a scientific consensus to be an endpoint (we should constantly challenge the known with new, reliable science), if there were a consensus it would be with those who say it is far too early to implement drastic changes in our economy to fight this alleged problem.
Continue the research. Believe the real science. Leave the demagogues out of it.