Consensus? On What? If it’s on ‘humans CAUSING “Global Warming”‘ then such statements are FALSE. False on the notion of consensus on humans CAUSING Climate Change, and false that humans are CAUSING Climate Change.
There is consensus that the climate has been warming overall for the past 30 or so years, but that’s a far cry from humans CAUSING it or the majority of it.
Anything or anyone that claims that humans are the CAUSE of it is clearly wrong. This shows that they’re absolutely biased, even in many cases where speakers of such don’t fully understand the issue. Those who do understand the issue have no way out other than being directly involved in spreading disinfo to support some type of agenda, whether it be tied to emotional or economic or political interests.
Types of Consensus
1: The Earth’s climate isn’t warming.
2: The Earth’s climate has been warming.
A: Humans aren’t contributing to the warming.
B: Humans can & are contributing, but we don’t understand how much so.
C: Human’s are causing it.
As you can see, Types 1, and A&C, are irrational and absurdly flawed. Type B, by its very nature as a third variable, contains within it a spectrum, where-as the binary Types A & C are irrational polar Absolutes.
The usage of these Types can function as a gauge as to whether or not an entity involved in the issue has vested interests involved.
A look into what Consensuses exist, and who has interests:
Most of the following can be found in the Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change page.
Types 1&A: (Non-trustworthy)
Types 1&A SCORE: 0
Type B: (Trustworthy)
American Meteorological Society: A source doesn’t equate to a cause:
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases… Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.
American Geophysical Union: Their language includes potentially powerful wording, but it still leaves it open in terms of whether or not humans are causing all or the majority of warming:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. … It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.
American Institute of Physics: Echos the AGU’s precise statements above.
American Astronomical Society: Same as above, and they even further elaborate on my language contexts:
In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
American Association of State Climatologists:
The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system.
Geological Society of America:
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.
Institution of Engineers Australia: No direct mention of cause & effect:
“Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk… We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”
Type B-t SCORE: 7
Type B: (Questionable)
American Association of Petroleum Geologists: Being petro-related lands them in here by default, however the statement isn’t very questionable as there should be disagreement over the effects as humans simply don’t fully understand them:
the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases
American Chemical Society: They flip flop considerably in their statement, ending in supporting abrupt measures:
There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses. (…) The greatest challenges facing the global community include understanding how the global climate system works and how our own activities may be influencing it, as well as undertaking responsible actions to protect that system for our children. (…) The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue.
Federal Climate Change Science Program: Bush’s panel. I’m not a fan of Bush or the government, so they get placed under Questionable by default the same as if the IPCC didn’t already fall under Type C:
Studies … show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London: They ride the razors edge in their language:
“We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.”
U.S. National Research Council:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century… The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue
Type B-q SCORE: 5
Type C: (Non-trustworthy)
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”.
G-8 Joint Sciences Academy:
It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
“We recognize the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
US National Academy of Science:
“In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. … On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science…”
American Association for the Advancement of Science:
“The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies’ statement.”
Type C SCORE: 4
CONCLUSION: No Consensus on Man CAUSED warming.
The Consensus of Economists
Economists, including Nobel Prize winners, agree that, following “rational prioritization”, the costs vs. benefits of combating “Global Warming” make it unfeasible compared to spending on bigger global societal that are directly affecting millions if not billions of people today. Additionally, combating global poverty can the most dramatic effects on the improvement of the environment, as impoverished areas produced the worst environmental conditions.
Kyoto would only reduce global temperatures by 0.07’C (seven one-hundreths of a degree) under best case scenarios worldwide, yet would cost in excess of $10 Trillion over 10 years. $400 Billion has already been spent by the world on it, saving virtually no lives, meanwhile spending a mere $28 Billion right now would save over 28 Million Lives.
Al Gore ‘on Economic Consensus’:
And more than anything else, that requires accurate measurements of the real consequences –positive & negative- of all the important economic choices we make.
-An Inconvenient Truth, page 270.
What is a “Consensus” anyways?
Now, on the matter of consensus, shouldn’t there be an overwhelming majority who explicitly promote the idea of “human caused” Anthropogenic Global Warming, for there to be a “consensus”? Or rather, shouldn’t all the ‘members’ agree to the ‘decision’ “because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time”?
What is Consensus?
The root of consensus is the word consent, which means to give permission to. When you consent to a decision, you are giving your permission to the group to go ahead with the decision. You may disagree with the decision, but based on listening to everyone else’s input, all the individuals agree to let the decision go forward, because the decision is the best one the entire group can achieve at the current time.
What consensus is not
It is not unanimous agreement. Participants may consent to an decision they disagree with, but recognize meets the needs of the group and therefore give permission to.
Taking a closer look at “consensus”, it almost seems to suggest that the sources at the ‘top of the pyramid’ who propagate such rhetoric are trying to reach for some sort of subconscious subjective underpinnings beyond what most would make note of from the usual ‘unanimous agreement’ context.
In conclusion, there is no consensus. But even if there were, just because most scientists might agree that humans are or can be contributing to warming doesn’t mean that they support the Al Gore apocalyptic doomsday prophecies. To determine that after seeing that most scientists would agree to said contributions is heavily laden with logical fallacy, and this would especially go for Al Gore and his religious convictions (he actually said “It’s a spiritual matter” on Larry King and again in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech).