The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Scientific Consensus of Climate Change Revisited
This paper first reviews previous work undertaken to assess the level of scientific consensus concerning climate change, concluding that studies of scientific consensus concerning climate change have tended to measure different things. Three dimensions of consensus are determined: manifestation, attribution and legitimation. Consensus concerning these dimensions are explored in ore detail using a time series of data from surveys of climate scientists. In most cases, little difference is discerned between those who have participated in the IPCC process and those who have not. Consensus however, in both groups does not equal unanimity. Results also suggest rather than a single group proclaiming the IPCC does not represent consensus, there are now two groups, one claiming the IPCC makes over estimations (a group previously labeled skeptics, deniers, etc.) and a relatively new formation of a group (many of whom have participated in the IPCC process) proclaiming the IPCC tends to underestimate some climate related phenomena.
The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change
2008
One of the most heavily and most publicly contested scientific consensus in the last decade has been in the debate concerning climate change, namely if it is the result of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity. ). Using evidence from survey questionnaires distributed among climate scientists, the following suggests that consensus among climate scientists might not be as clear as sometimes depicted. ============================================= 11/27/2008 7:59 PM
Earth's Future, 2014
Abstract Nearly all climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is occurring, yet half of Americans do not know or do not believe that a scientific consensus has been reached. That such a large proportion of Americans do not understand that there is a near-unanimous scientific consensus about the basic facts of climate change matters, a lot. This essay briefly explains why, and what climate science societies and individual climate scientists can do to set the record straight.
Climate science and the dynamics of expert consensus
Have temperature increases been caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations? "Very likely" [>90%] that "most" of 20th century increases due to GHG Attribution skeptics Some relevant, many not Consensus 4. Have human activities caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations? CO2, N2O, halocarbons: unequivocal; CH4: "very likely" [>90%] None None Consensus 5. Will greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise in the future?
Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening
BMJ, 1998
Editor-The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality. 1 In his editorial Smith asserts, "virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening." Global warming is now joining the list of "what everyone knows." Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. "The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree." 2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to "prove" that climate change induced by humans has occurred. 3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers' summary (which became the "take home message" for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, "In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community. .. I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." 4 Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphereocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994. 5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years? 5
History and future of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming
Environmental Research Letters, 2013
The article by Cook et al offers an interesting new methodological approach to the debate about (supposedly lacking) scientific consensus on global warming, showing that contrarian claims that there was no such consensus are clearly misleading. But once the attribution issue can be regarded as settled, new questions and controversies arise. They ultimately result from the different technological and organizational pathways towards a new global society model that takes its adverse climate change effects into account and seeks for new, but also risky solutions. Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.
Majority view of climate scientists is that global warming is indeed happening
BMJ, 1998
Editor-Gardner states that the scientific basis of climate change is uncertain and that there are major differences of opinion among climatologists about whether climate change is likely to occur and its potential magnitude. 1 Inevitably, with an issue of such complexity there is bound to be scientific debate, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we quoted in our articles, is a major international collaboration: it has involved the participation of over 2500 scientists from around the world. Many of the most vociferous sceptics have received funding from fossil fuel industries, which clearly have a vested interest in opposing changes in policy that might result in shifts away from fossil fuels. 2 The evidence that Gardner quoted against climate change-that satellite data have shown 0.13°C global cooling between 1979 and 1994 and that the Arctic has been cooling-is mistaken. Satellite measurements are in good agreement with records of surface temperature for 1979-94. 3 Once the transient effects of volcanoes and the El Niño-southern oscillation are removed, upward global trends of 0.09°C per decade from satellite data and 0.17°C per decade from surface data are obtained. 4 This is reasonable agreement, especially when one realises that the satellite measurement is a weighted average over the atmosphere column from the surface to 7 km altitude and temperature changes in the midtroposphere may well differ from those at the surface. Furthermore, although temperatures have fallen in Greenland, they have risen by similar amounts over much of the remaining Arctic, notably in Siberia, northern Canada, and Alaska. 5 There is compelling evidence that the average global temperature has increased by about 0.6°C since the industrial revolution. Indeed, nine of the 11 hottest years this century have occurred since 1985. More importantly, climate models suggest that substantial global warming (1.0-3.5°C) will have occurred by the end of the next century with projected increases in use of fossil fuels. This underlines the need for a precautionary approach to limit emissions of greenhouse gases as well as increased investment in research on climate change and its potential impacts. Finally, we must emphasise that the prospect of large scale climate and environmental changes necessitates the contingent assessment of future risks. Epidemiologists (like agricultural scientists, hydrologists, urban planners, and others) cannot reasonably dispute the majority view of climate scientists. Rather, they must base their risk assessment on the climate change scenarios projected by those experts.
JCOM, 2019
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication. While 'speaking with one voice' has contributed to the Panel's success in putting climate change on the public and political agenda, the consensus policy is also contested, as our literature analysis (n=106) demonstrates. The arguments identified thereby inform a survey of climate scientists (n=138), who are the ones responsible for realising the policy. The data indicate moderate support for the consensus policy but significantly more in traditional climate sciences than in social sciences, life-and geosciences. Abstract Environmental communication; Science and policy-making Keywords https://doi.
Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening.docx - Google Docs
The World Ends with a Tralfamadorina pushing the wrong button! , 2023
Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening Gregory Gardner, Locum general practitioner Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer Editor-The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, "virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening." Global warming is now joining the list of "what everyone knows."