by Chuck Hall
Quite often you’ll hear from global warming dissenters that ‘many leading scientists object to global warming.’ This argument is often used to demonstrate that there is no major scientific consensus that human activities are contributing in any significant way to global warming. While it is true that some have dissented, in order to gain a sense of perspective on what the scientific consensus really is, we must first define what we mean by ‘many’ and ‘scientists.’
For example, a recent U.S. Senate report had about 400 ‘scientists’ stating that they did not believe that human activities played a significant part in global warming. A Canadian group of 60 ‘scientists’ also signed a letter to that effect in 2006. However, on closer examination of the credentials of these scientists, many of them were retired, and the majority of them had areas of expertise unrelated to climatology. Asking a scientist in another field to render an opinion on climatology is somewhat akin to going to a pediatrician for advice on how to treat cancer.
Added together, the U.S. and Canadian dissenters who made statements number about 500. In contrast, about 11,000 scientists who are actively engaged in climate science research around the world signed a petition protesting U.S. President George Bush’s stance on global warming. When you do the math, this means that only 1 in 22 scientists object to the consensus that climate change is caused largely by human activities. And of this 1 in 22, the majority has specialties in fields other than climate sciences.
Rendering an opinion is quite a bit different than publishing actual research in a peer-reviewed journal. The process of peer-review means that the article meets rigorous requirements for scientific accuracy. Such papers are examined thoroughly by a panel of experts in the field to ensure accuracy. So what do the peer-reviewed journals have to say on the subject?
In 2004, a study by Naomi Oreskes looked at over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that referenced global warming in some way. The papers examined were all published in the last decade, and all were subject to vigorous review by experts in climatology. The study found that not a single one of these papers denied that global warming was happening. Furthermore, not a single one of these papers denied that human activities were responsible in a large part of climate change.
In addition to this unanimous consensus in the scientific literature, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and various scientific organizations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, all have issued statements in recent years that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
In fact, the evidence is so compelling, global warming has produced a consensus that is rarely seen in the skeptical world of science. Scientists are trained to be skeptical by nature. So if skeptics worldwide overwhelmingly agree, it is safe to conclude that there must be a reason. That reason is most likely that humans are responsible for global warming.
For example, a recent U.S. Senate report had about 400 ‘scientists’ stating that they did not believe that human activities played a significant part in global warming. A Canadian group of 60 ‘scientists’ also signed a letter to that effect in 2006. However, on closer examination of the credentials of these scientists, many of them were retired, and the majority of them had areas of expertise unrelated to climatology. Asking a scientist in another field to render an opinion on climatology is somewhat akin to going to a pediatrician for advice on how to treat cancer.
Added together, the U.S. and Canadian dissenters who made statements number about 500. In contrast, about 11,000 scientists who are actively engaged in climate science research around the world signed a petition protesting U.S. President George Bush’s stance on global warming. When you do the math, this means that only 1 in 22 scientists object to the consensus that climate change is caused largely by human activities. And of this 1 in 22, the majority has specialties in fields other than climate sciences.
Rendering an opinion is quite a bit different than publishing actual research in a peer-reviewed journal. The process of peer-review means that the article meets rigorous requirements for scientific accuracy. Such papers are examined thoroughly by a panel of experts in the field to ensure accuracy. So what do the peer-reviewed journals have to say on the subject?
In 2004, a study by Naomi Oreskes looked at over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that referenced global warming in some way. The papers examined were all published in the last decade, and all were subject to vigorous review by experts in climatology. The study found that not a single one of these papers denied that global warming was happening. Furthermore, not a single one of these papers denied that human activities were responsible in a large part of climate change.
In addition to this unanimous consensus in the scientific literature, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and various scientific organizations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, all have issued statements in recent years that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
In fact, the evidence is so compelling, global warming has produced a consensus that is rarely seen in the skeptical world of science. Scientists are trained to be skeptical by nature. So if skeptics worldwide overwhelmingly agree, it is safe to conclude that there must be a reason. That reason is most likely that humans are responsible for global warming.
No comments:
Post a Comment