In a sense, there is no such thing as climate change denial. No one denies that climate changes (in fact, the most common climate myth is the argument that past climate change is evidence that current global warming is also natural). Then what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. A more appropriate term would be “consensus denial”.
There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.
A number of surveys of the climate science community since the early 1990s have measured the level of scientific consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming has steadily increased. As the body of evidence grows, the consensus is getting stronger.
Two recent studies adopting different approaches have arrived at strikingly consistent results. A survey of over 3000 Earth scientists found that as the climate expertise increased, so did agreement about human-caused global warming. For climate scientists actively publishing climate research (79 scientists in total), there was 97% agreement.
This result was confirmed in a separate analysis compiling a list of scientists who had made public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate papers (908 scientists in total), the same result: 97% agreement.
While individual scientists have their personal views on climate change, they must back up their opinions with evidence-based research that withstands the scrutiny of the peer-reviewed process. An analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers published from 1993 to 2003 found that out of 928 papers, none rejected the consensus.
Despite these and many other indicators of consensus (I could go on), there is a gaping chasm between reality and the perceived consensus among the general public. Polls from 1997 to 2007 found that around 60% of Americans believe there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether global warming was happening. A 2012 Pew poll found less than half of Americans thought that scientists agreed humans were causing global warming.
The gap between perception and reality has real-world consequences. People who believe that scientists disagree on global warming show less support for climate policy. Consequently, a key strategy of opponents of climate action for over 20 years has been to cast doubt on the scientific consensus and maintain the consensus gap.
How have they achieved this? Hang around and you’ll witness first hand the attack on consensus in the comment threads of this article. The techniques of consensus denial are easily identifiable. In fact, if one rejects an overwhelming scientific consensus, it’s inevitable that they end up exhibiting some of the following characteristics.
Expect to see reference to dissenting non-experts who appear to be highly qualified while not having published any actual climate research. Fake expert campaigns are launched with disturbing regularity. Recently, a group of NASA retirees issued a press release rejecting the consensus. While possessing no actual climate expertise, they evidently hoped to cash in on the NASA brand.
A prominent Australian fake expert is Ian Plimer, the go-to guy for political leaders and fossil fuel billionaires. He hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change.
There should be many cases of cherry picking but how do you identify a genuine cherry pick? When a conclusion from a small selection of data differs from the conclusion from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking. For example, a common cherry pick of late is the myth that global warming stopped over the last 16 years. This focus on short periods of temperature data ignores the long-term warming trend. Importantly, it also ignores the fact that over the last 16 years, our planet has been building up heat at a rate of over three Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. To deny global warming is to deny the basic fact that our planet is building up heat at an extraordinary rate.
One way of avoiding consensus is to engage in logical fallacies. The most common fallacy employed to deny the human influence on climate change is the non sequitur, Latin for “it does not follow”. The onslaught of Australian extreme weather in 2013 has led to a surge in the fallacy “extreme weather events have happened before therefore humans are not having an influence on current extreme weather”. This is the logical equivalent to arguing that people have died from natural causes in the past so no one ever gets murdered now.
Finally, with consensus denial comes the inevitable conspiracy theories. If you disagree with an entire scientific community, you have to believe they’re all conspiring to deceive you. A conspiracy theorist displays two identifying characteristics. They believe exaggerated claims about the power of the conspirators. The scientific consensus on climate change is endorsed by tens of thousands of climate scientists in countries all over the world. A conspiracy of that magnitude makes the moon landing hoax tame in comparison.
Conspiracy theorists are also immune to new evidence. When climate scientists were accused of falsifying data, nine independent investigations by universities and governments in two countries found no evidence of wrongdoing. How did conspiracy theorists react? By claiming that each investigation was a whitewash and part of the conspiracy! With each new claim of whitewash, the conspiracy grew larger, encompassing more universities and governments.
A key element to meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap. This means identifying and rebutting the many rhetorical techniques employed to deny the scientific consensus.
This article was adapted from Understanding Climate Change Denial.
Comments on this article are now closed.
David Clerke
Teacher
And the rise in temperature for the last sixteen years is? And once again the best we can do is stop all human activity. The Chief Climate Commissioner Tim No Rains Flannery has said that it would take a thousand years for cooling to occur after this. When Andy Pitman of the ANU was asked the same question he said temperatures would continue to rise for twenty or thirty years. When the Chief Scientist was asked who was right his answer was, literally, that he did not have a clue. When two self styled scientists were on ABC 666 and were asked to adjudicate all they could answer was "its complicated". And then ended their broadcast. Some consensus! PS how long before this comment gets removed?
Sylvia Robinson
Archaeologist
David, there is a good case for removing denialist posts that repeatedly bring up the same repeatedly debunked points on every climate change thread you ever read. The case is this - it is a waste of everybody's time. You have most certainly read the answer to your "last sixteen years" argument many times by now. If you haven't taken it in by now, you never will. Why should people who actually care about this subject waste their time saying it to you again?
Further, the discussion about the best way to deal with climate change has been blighted for many years now by the delaying and diversionary tactics of denialists. Not you, real pros (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network?intcmp=122). It almost feels as if there is an ethical obligation now just to block their opinion. They've done enough damage as it is.
Andrew Vincent
Marketing . Communications . Multimedia
A lot of points there.
1- In a changing climate, temp rises will not necessarily be linear. There will be ups, downs and plateaus - AKA weather. It's flatly not possible to gauge EXACTLY how much warming there has been in the last 16 years bc it means needing to extract a trend from a very noisy signal. IOW - looking at 16 years and insisting on drawing a conclusion from that is a ridiculous exercise.
Q: Why 16 years? why not 10, 15, 18, 20, or 25?
A: Because it returns a result that the people asking don't want to hear. ie. We are more than 95% certain we are looking at a warming trend. I believe the 16 year figure is quoted because the certainty level dipped to 92% (from memory). ie. We can "only" be 92% certain there's a warming trend.
If you actually want to learn the statistical reasoning (and yes it is interesting):
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/
Aden Date
Manager of the Guild Volunteer Hub at University of Western Australia
Why would the moderators remove such a brilliant example of cherry picking and Goreism?
Or perhaps you're demonstrating Poe's Law.
Andrew Vincent
Marketing . Communications . Multimedia
2- Contrary to what you imply - those advocating renewables are trying to find ways to KEEP progressing human activity. "Sustainability" is not just a buzz word. Without renewables it is impossible to keep expanding in a finite world. It's just reality - and we are going to have to deal with it.
Andrew Vincent
Marketing . Communications . Multimedia
3 - Experts disagree on many things but the basic science is not amongst them. The "concensus" referred to is acceptance that the current warming period is anthropogenic. Experts disagree on how much that is (climate sensitivity) and how the world will change in response.
- and as an aside - Tim "No Rains" Flannery wrote about floods caused by La Nina getting heavier. Most commentary I read about him tends to want to forget that part - as you have.
Spiro Vlachos
AL
Bravo David! A teacher that obviously teaches kids to think, rather than to merely indoctrinate.
David Clerke
Teacher
So you do not have an answer or do not like the truth?
Mike Hansen
Mr
As usual Spiro you are easily fooled. David Clerke is not a teacher - he is a sockpuppet for John Coochey, a Canberra gun enthusiast.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
So, does he teach astrology and intelligent design as well?
Spiro Vlachos
AL
Or the oxymoron, environmental management?
John Cook
Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland
David, in the textbook chapter that this article was based on, I talk about the 5 characteristics of those who deny a scientific consensus. One of those, which I didn't include here for the sake of brevity, was unrealistic expectations. By scientific consensus, I refer to climate scientists agreeing on the basic fact that humans are causing global warming. I am not saying climate scientists agree on every facet of climate science. You're insisting climate scientists (actually Flannery is not a climate scientists) agree on specific issue like the behaviour of the carbon cycle over thousands of years before we can claim consensus. That is the fallacy of unrealistic expectations.
David Clerke
Teacher
I ask you your own question. How many years plateau of temperatures do you require before you rethink your position and perhaps stop using the deliberately offensive word denier? I have not described you as a bed wetter.
David Clerke
Teacher
I simply asked a question, the only good thing so far is that no one has lied about a false answer, there is the .6 degree truthoid going around which is based on a typo.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
At least I score an oxy
David Clerke
Teacher
So which is the consensus here, Cox's first paper or his second because the second contradicts his first findings. I assume he was a Climate Scientist when he had bad news but not when he gave good?
"The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.
Read moreThe boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate…
David Clerke
Teacher
Nice to see Flannery has been expelled from the fold but if he is not a climate scientist (however defined) why is he the Climate Commissioner? Why have no climate scientists challenged his claims before they are proved wrong or in fact even when they are proved wrong?
Brian Boss
Architect
hey, David, i'm new to this game. You sound so confident and assured, you must be a published climate scientists. Can you please point me to a peer reviewed paper you have written? Or at least one which supports your argument? Cmon, surely there must be one...
Wayne Fowler
teacher
So what would thirty years or more of plateau mean David? Would this prove CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Would it demonstrate the measured effects of CO2 are no longer in operation or never existed? The answer is no because it does not present evidence to the contrary. It would likely make us ask why has it stopped warming? This would lead to questions/hypotheses addressing where the heat is going or what is counteracting the radiative imbalance created by anthropogenic CO2? It would not, in and of itself, alter the basic physics nor the conclusions drawn to this point.
Of course since the "plateau" is more of an illusion created by the super El Nino of 1998 followed by a period dominated by La Nina the "plateau" argument is already largely moot. The warming has essentially continued unabated.
Wayne Fowler
teacher
Re: The Cox studies.
Did someone say there was a consensus of evidence and/or scientists on the future of the Amazon?
Glenn Tamblyn
logged in via Facebook
David
John Cook said:
"Hang around and you’ll witness first hand the attack on consensus in the comment threads of this article."
"For example, a common cherry pick of late is the myth that global warming stopped over the last 16 years...."
Then you say... "And the rise in temperature for the last sixteen years is? "
That is just PRICELESS David! A perfect gem.
I wish John had given enough advance warning about this article. I could have put down a few bets.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
about as sensible as "adaptive response" as a measure for dealing with activities like CSG
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
ok, that's the Amazon. we do know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans leads to increased acidification, lowers the ability of the oceans to carry oxygen, and leads to shifts within the various layers of the oceans changing currents and flows globally.
The oceans impact directly on the climate on the land.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Flannery simply collates and presents data to government on developments by climate scientists.
David Clerke
Teacher
Don't put down the bets just answer the questions!
David Clerke
Teacher
That is it is getting warmer but the temperature is not rising? Interesting, bit like the doco which gets shown on cable from time to time about AGW causing another ice age. I am serious keep your eyes open for it.
David Clerke
Teacher
When you argue from authority or question someone's motives you demonstrate you have run out of arguments. Usually doesn't happen on the first post though. But while on the topic can we have a list of approved Climate Scientists, seems Flannery is no longer in the club(first degree Eng Lit so how about Pitman I believe a geographer.
Glenn Tamblyn
logged in via Facebook
John Cook already has David.
Multiple Hiroshima Bombs, being added to the Earths heat balance every second David. Hasn't stopped, hasn't slowed down. Just keeps happening.
And if you do some basic math David, you realise that this rate of heat additions is more than 4 times greater than the largest possible source of heat here on Earth - geothermal heat. So something is heating the Earth from outside. And it ain't the Sun, that is actually cooling slightly.
So I wonder what could be causing it ....
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
David, you are simply repeating a myth that was addressed in John Cook's article. The planet as a whole (which includes the oceans, where over 90% of global warming goes) has actually warmed substantially in the last 16 years. Indeed, the warming is greater than the preceding 16 years.
And yes, the Earth will continue to warm because there is an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy. That's why the oceans warmed - greenhouse gases trap more heat in both the ocean and the atmosphere, causing an imbalance between the rate of energy entering the climate system, and the now reduced flow leaving it.
As always I write this comment for the uninformed reader, rather than yourself. You appear to be an ideologue impervious to learning.
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
This would be good news if it were true, but rather disturbingly the observations seems to be tracking Peter Cox's earlier work. Much of the Amazon rainforest has shown extraordinary variation in rainfall in the last decade, and despite years of high annual rainfall since the extreme drought of 2005 <a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-025">a large tract of rainforest is showing signs of degradation</a>.
David Clerke
Teacher
So who represents the consensus you or Cox? I do not know who I am supposed to agree with.
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
Your comment is nonsensical. The physical world seems to be in agreement with Peter Cox's earlier work. The evidence is what it is.
Andrew Vincent
Marketing . Communications . Multimedia
I did not call you a denier.
"How many years plateau of temperatures do you require before you rethink your position"
I would say that warming has stopped when it's mathematically correct to do so. You apparently didn't read that link I posted.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/
The trends before and after 1997 are not statistically different enough to claim that "warming stopped". You are making the error of comparing trends to an arbitrary horizontal line and saying "gee they look similar" instead of comparing mathematically to 1997 trend.
Where are you getting your claim from anyway? a blog? a newspaper? Fox?
David Arthur
n/a
"That is it is getting warmer but the temperature is not rising?"
Err, something must be driving the ice melting trend.
Have you ever attended a party with a bathtub full of ice for keeping drinks cold? As the party goes on, the ice melts but the drinks stay at approximately the same temperature - until all the ice is melted.
At the really funny parties I attended, they put a block of ice up on the edge of the bath out of the water. As it melted, the bath overflowed.
David Clerke
Teacher
The text that John Cook should read is "When Prophecy Fails" or any that duplicated it. This involves what happens to doomsday cults when the world does not end or the flying saucers do not arrive. What never happens is that the cult leaders say "We goofed" and get on with their lives. The deadline will get pushed back, (sound familiar) the end of the world gets re defined and often the members drift across to the next cult. Like Club of Rome (remember that, not a single prediction right and Ehrlich loosing his bet with an economist although I believe he actually paid up) moving to CAGW. Interesting and obvious parallels.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"And the rise in temperature for the last sixteen years is?"
0.14 deg C: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1997/trend
And your point is?
To be a troll, obviously.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Now, now, Mr Hansen
Gerard Dean
Riddley Walker
.
David Clerke is quite correct when he says there has been no warming over the last 16 years. In fact there have been five periods of cooling since 1970.
Here is a graph which clearly shows those cooling periods, marked in blue.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticFrame.jpg
Grant Burfield
Dr
"An ethical obligation now just to block their opinions".
Well said. This is a university blog after all and therefore the last place that should countenance differing opinions. And as an academic archeologist you would know that better than most.
Piltdown man.
Chris Harper
Engineer
Grant,
A scientific scam isn't properly either a scam or scientific if a bit of technical jargon isn't thrown into the pot in order to confuse the layman and to elevate the specialist: I think you meant to refer to Eoanthropus dawsoni.
Grant Burfield
Dr
Chris,
Thanks for that. Isn't life strange, a turn of the page (h/t Moody Blues) then suddenly you discover something new. I have no idea whether Dr Robinson is a Eoanthropus Dawsonieist but perhaps she still would be if other people felt "an ethical obligation now just to block their opinions". However I reckon she's now a Sarawak Orangutanagist and is following the modern day consensus.
Nevertheless, we should be told.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
One of the *worst* enemies the biosphere has is this idiotic, but deeply-entrenched notion of ever-increasing "economic growth:" There is only ONE thing in nature that can keep growing, without limits, and it's called *cancer.* The host always dies. In this case, it won't be the 'host," per se, that dies; it'll be one of the organisms--or a lot of them--in the host's home that gets killed.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Thank you for that heads-up: sock puppetry is an increasingly-used tactic employed by the hardcore denialati.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
"Climastrology," I think...;)
Paul Wigton
Geologist
"Where are you getting your claim from anyway? a blog? a newspaper? Fox?"
John Coochey is using the famous contrarian Eyecrometer©....:)
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Ah, Coochey once AGAIN shows his true motivations by using the term NO scientist uses: CAGW. Just another denier data point in Lew's and Cook's study...;)
Grant Burfield
Dr
A Google Scholar search on "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" returns 15,800 hits.
Mind you, a Google Scholar search on "machine and wood shops" returns 137,000 so I don't suppose that proves much at all.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Perhaps you do not understand the point, that being that climate scientists, to a person, do NOT use the term "CAGW:" As far as I can tell--intensive study in this field, having read over 1500 papers, articles, and journals, to date--no one but hardcore denialists use the term. AGW, in and of itself, has varying ranges of possible outcomes one is catastrophic, if humanity continues on with BAU.
I've yet to see a single person who's not either a fake skeptic or who isn't a denier, use the term. I'd be willing to bet a Guiness that the majority of those 15,800 hits you cite link back to some anti-science blog, but not likely to a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change.
Darren McCosker
GM
There is a basic supposition in your argument that I would appreciate clarity on. The term "Climate Scientists" seems a little grey. Are they meteorologists a variant of, or people who study 'climate change?'
If its the former, all good.
If its the latter that's problematic. It would be like saying that the markets should determine social issues because free market economists who do peer reviewed articles overwhelmingly think this to be the case?
As a final thought - I think that those who support the theory of AGW suffer at the sensationalist headline grabbing activities of many who are lacking in qualifications as much as the objectors you refer to. Statements such as sea levels will rise by a metre before 2050, the GBReef will disappear by 2020, environmental refugees will outnumber those displaced by other activities are pointless, and work to sway the general public away from a rational debate.
John Carney
logged in via Twitter
Darren, the correct term is "climatologist", though that covers a variety of disciplines. A bit like "meteorologist", or "biologist". Your notion that "real" climate scientists should be meteorologists is mistaken. Meteorology is quite specifically the study of short term systems. Climatology is long term.
Climatologists do study climate change, but your analogy is not apt. The majority of climatologists aren't saying that social issues should be determined by the weather. They're saying that human activity is driving global warming, and if we don't change our behaviour it's going to get far, far worse.
Spiro Vlachos
AL
Alarmists such as the author seem to be some sort of modern day conventionalists that believe fundamental scientific principles must be grounded on consensual agreements, rather than on external and empirical reality. Climate science belongs in the arts and humanities group of disciplines since its purpose is to convince the public of their logical constructions. In contrast, true science seeks to test a theoretical system using some falsifying hypothesis. Why else would it be so popular amongst the political elite?
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Damn, I knew we should have managed the conspiracy better than that!
Commander Cook, please urgently instruct the Panic Brigade to withdraw - the locals are beginning to wise up.
Of course they can't figure out the difference between the opinion of an economist and the evidence of a scientist and still haven't quite understood how the word 'theory' is used by scientists - nonetheless, they have spotted our vain attempts to panic the lemings into running over the cliff into the caves and leaving the rest of us to rule the grants process!
John Cook
Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland
Spiro, I agree entirely with you that fundamental scientific principles must be grounded in empirical evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature. The consensus of scientists is a reflection of the consensus of evidence.
Spiro Vlachos
AL
Here is where your insistence that those who question the theory are deniers is a fallacy. Even if you agree that there has been some warming due to human activity, the evidence is always expressed in terms of the forecast or projected consequences. Actual temperature realisations have been found to be quite different to the forecasts and projections stated in many peer reviewed articles. Of course, it is not modus operandi to retract articles written in the past if forecasts are not realised. But, the implication is that the understanding of the theory must change to take account of the forecast errors. Just as when the occurrence of stagflation in the 1970's changed macroeconomics, which at the time held the purely Keynesian view that aggregate fluctuations were purely demand driven. The science of the climate must also change to encompass the evidence uncovered by the realisations of temperatures, that contradict existing theories.
John Cook
Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland
Spiro: "evidence is always expressed in terms of the forecast or projected consequences"
That's not the case. Go to http://sks.to/evidence or http://sks.to/agw for thorough documentation of *observed* evidence for human caused global warming.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Quite right, Felix. We haven't fooled them with "germ theory" or "the theory of evolution" either.
Brian Boss
Architect
Fair enough, lets say your rather extreme conspiracy theory that 97% of climate scientists are actually not scientists but part some sort of purely political communist underground (I know, it sounds far fetched), then surely it wouldn't be difficult for at least ONE 'true scientists' to refute their 'constructions' with a peer reviewed paper. Why are these 'true scientists' being so aloof? Why do they refuse to publish science papers? Why do they only speak to like minded journalists at News Ltd and Mining bloggers? Its a bit weird isn't it?
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Quite right, Felix. We tripped them us with "germ theory" and "evolutionary theory" as well!
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Climate science belongs in the Arts and Humanities? OMG. Please do educate me Sprio, what are your qualifications in this field again?
Delete this account as requested!
logged in via email @iinet.net.au
They're getting all their information from the water - we plotted where it could hear and it has a memory you know!
or , to quote a popular interweb meme
the stupid, it burns
David Arthur
n/a
Fundamental scientific principles, Mr Vlachos?
Here are a few.
Earth is warmed by absorption of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth's temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a 'black body' radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth's spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.
Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.
Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.
Observation 4. Satellite observations show decreasing emission to space of this long-wave energy, at EXACTLY THE SAME WAVELENGTHS as CO2 absorbs long-wave energy.
Observation 5. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorped in exposed ocean rather than reflected…
Read morePaul Wigton
Geologist
There ya go again, with all those pesky FACTS and inconvenient DATA....:-P
John Carney
logged in via Twitter
Other hallmarks of consensus denial are preemptive claims of free speech oppression. Eg., remarks like "PS how long before this comment gets removed?"
David Clerke
Teacher
So it is no longer disagreement with "science" but disagreement with consensus? Interesting!
Aden Date
Manager of the Guild Volunteer Hub at University of Western Australia
Allowing consensus deniers free speech is a bit like allowing people to yell "No fire!" in a crowded theatre that is, in fact, on fire.
John Carney
logged in via Twitter
Often it's both, but consensus denial is a "key strategy of opponents of climate action for over 20 years." So says the article. You should read it.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Wow - you can even cherry pick and re-arrange individual words!
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
that is what the article is about
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
classic lol :)
Grant Burfield
Dr
Science aside, a comment like yours is extremely disturbing and belongs to what I would have hoped is a long gone and discredited era. Even more so for someone at a University.
David Clerke
Teacher
So to pursue your metaphor. If the theater is on fire what are you going to do about it? Australia's entire emissions are less than a few months growth by China and India and let's not have any twaddle about China closing powers stations, they close few and open many. No one contests that all things being equal there is some influence from human activity but the questions are really how much and does it matter. It is like saying one day we are each going to die, knew that already. What do you propose, thermonuclear war with India and China to prevent them developing?
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
Aden - that is a great analogy.
David Arthur
n/a
Mr Clerke, Australia's emissions may be less than China's or India's emissions, but that is no reason to not start decreasing Australia's emissions as soon as possible.
For one thing, we'll invent a swag of processes and technologies in the process of weaning ourselves off fossil fuel, which we'll be able to licence overseas to make up for lost coal export revenue.
Grant Burfield
Dr
If you think that is a great analogy then perhaps you should visit the AWM, peruse the 100, 000+ names there then rethink your ideas on free speech.
Chris Harper
Engineer
Aden Dale,
But then again, as we see in the Gillard-Roxon proposals for abolishing all public discussion of any contentious issue, to a progressive any excuse is a good excuse to close down opposing opinion.
After all, what progressive likes to have their nose rubbed in the reality that their world is crumbling on pretty much a daily basis?
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"Australia's entire emissions are less than a few months growth by China and India"
That's just not true.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
I'm a long time petrolhead: I *clearly* remember a day when no one--NO ONE--thought a big V8-engined car could get 30+ mpUSg. Now, there are a host of them that do and, then as now, there are these brigades crowing, "We cannot fix it! So what if it's real? We can't stop it!", entirely forgetting we DID it, and likely, given the incredible range of human ingenuity--adding the resolve to do so-- we can ameliorate it,
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Free speech has ALWAYS had limits: yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, if *not* on fire, is a clear example of when it's not allowed, and should be prosecuted. However, as someone remarked, upthread, the house IS on fire.
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
Grant Burfield, I suspect I understand the dangers of global warming far better than you. This is simply a result of being well read on the subject - and all based on the primary peer-reviewed scientific literature. The evidence points to some very nasty consequences in the near future.
That's why Aden's analogy is so apt. On the one hand we have scientists publishing research which has dire implications for many ecosystems and for humanity (the fire in his analogy). And on the other, we have a bunch of people who publish very little in the peer-reviewed literature making claims at odds with the evidence (the contrarians saying there is no fire).
Peter Bergs
logged in via Facebook
Dr Burfield, lighten up man. I also think it is a great analogy
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Having a personal view on whether human activity has influenced climate change makes as mush sense as having a personal view on how tsunamis form, or whether vaccination is effective.
If your view differs from the majority of people who have both studied the background theory and practised in the profession, you have to wonder on what basis your view would be preferable to theirs.
Delete this account as requested!
logged in via email @iinet.net.au
As a starting point learn and understand what 'confirmation bias' is. Then come to the realisation that it is not a desirable thing.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
As a continuing point, may I suggest you research "peer review" and how it stems the vast majority of confirmation bias.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Having a personal view on whether human activity has influenced world climate makes as much sense as having a personal view on how tsunamis are formed, or whether vaccination works.
You can have a view that differs from the majority of people who are trained and have practised in that area, but what's the likelihood that you are right?
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
Who knows? Just as who knows how many youngsters have had their brains turned to mush by a medical profession that is too smug to rigorously examine its own methods?
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Science-denier, AGW-denier AND vaccine denier.
Mr Lamb scores a Trifecta.
Mike Hansen
Mr
Crank magnetism at work.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/06/28/crank-magnetism-1/
Delete this account as requested!
logged in via email @iinet.net.au
Yes, the medical profession does no research, no reviews of previous research and no reviews of its own methods....
Here's an excellent example of them doing exactly not that:
http://www.cochrane.org/
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
And every day more brain damaged youngsters...
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Show your data: otherwise, it's just another *uninformed* opinion.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
More science-free agit-prop from the modestly qualified Mr Cook.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Apologies for being twice as annoying as usual with multiple posts - they disappeared, then reappeared - I promise!
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
Has 'consensus' ever been used to defend any other scientific hypothesis?
Grant Burfield
Dr
Yes, amongst many others, phlogiston.
Grant Burfield
Dr
The luminiforous aether
Grant Burfield
Dr
Gastric ulcers
David Arthur
n/a
How about some observations on which an hypothesis can be based?
Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.
Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.
Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.
Observation 4. Satellite observations show decreasing emission to space of this long-wave energy, at EXACTLY THE SAME WAVELENGTHS as CO2 absorbs long-wave energy.
Observation 5. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime…
Read moreMike Hansen
Mr
Funny you should point to the aether Grant.
One of the main UK climate denial blogs is a big fan.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame/
Are you familiar with John Cook's research collaboration with Dr Lewandowsky.
I call it "crank magnetism" but apparently there are more scientific terms for it.
Grant Burfield
Dr
Yes Mike, I rarely venture to tallblokes blog but I am aware of it. I'm extremely sceptical as I'm sure all sceptics, including yourself are. And I'm sure you agree, as a sceptic, that the luminiferous aether was complete and utter BS.
Although the scientific consensus at the time.
Grant Burfield
Dr
Yes, I am aware of Mr Cook's and Professor Lewandowsky's research on climate denial; fags, aliens, 9/11, the moon etc. How could I not! This area has become one of the most crucial fields in climate research.
I understand it is "in press". I await its eventual publication with much anticipation (-:)
Mike Hansen
Mr
So your point is that because science once erroneously believed in the aether, then climate science is wrong?
Why climate science?
Science erroneously believed in the aether therefore relativity is wrong.
Science erroneously believed in the aether therefore quantum physics is wrong.
Grant Burfield
Dr
"So your point is that because science once erroneously believed in the aether, then climate science is wrong?"
I've checked what I wrote and even with your imaginative abilities I can't see where I said that or even pointed to it. I was merely acknowleging your scientific scepticism. Well done. Keep it up.
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Yes: here is but one example, and how a denier falls flat on his skeeving face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Lunacy?...;)
Paul Wigton
Geologist
Yes, and shows that the scientific process WORKS: it self-corrects, quite well, and all the time, as NEW data shows up. The data on AGW is not heading into its 150th year.
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
James Jenkin - the consensus is based upon the overwhelming consilience of the evidence. Skip reading contrarian blogs and start on the primary peer-reviewed literature and let us know what you find.
Steve Hindle
logged in via email @bigpond.com
A catchy heading.
"There is no such thing as climate change denial"
A simplistic assumption that omits other answers.
"...what is being denied? Quite simply, the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate."
Followed by a big put down on anyone who does not agree with the scientific consensus.
The real question being asked is how much of observed climate change is due to human activity and how much is natural change. (The scientific consensus is that both are occurring). To ask this question is not a denial of climate change.
Simplistic black and white debates which classify people as alarmists or deniers lead to entrenched opinions.
Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
Boss
From the Charter of "The Conversation" "•Work with our academic, business and government partners and our advisory board to ensure we are operating for the public good." (Public good is not defined).
Read more.........................................
Here's how this thread looks. I'm over 70 now, I know what I've achieved to help the world, I have time to think more of concepts like success and rigour and public good. So I'm not in the game that I now describe. I'm a retired player, now a commentator…
Mike Hansen
Mr
The rebuttal
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Geoffrey Harold Sherrington
Boss
Come on Mike, this stuff is like reading an old comic book. Still maintains a link between global warming and glaciers at Kilimanjaro? Lots of new data came in since 2009. Like critical stuff from Jason 2, launched mid 2008; and Grace, 2002, with a long gestation.
Learn to be critical, learn to analyse, learn to go to the raw data behind the pretty images.
A good scientist would try to keep suspect data out of schools and off blogs.
Stephanie Helder
Science Student
The fact is Geoffrey, that there are no people 'of worth, of proven performance' to contribute to lead articles in the way that you wish. If there were people that fulfilled that criteria that also shared your opinion on the matter then you would hear from them on the conversation. You could take your pick of other media sources in this country that are far less scientifically rigorous where you might have a chance of hearing what you want to hear.
Chris Harper
Engineer
Stephanie,
Firstly, anyone who deviates from any progressive mindset does not get a look in on this organ. Diversity of political opinion in the part of the contributors is pretty close to non existent.
Secondly, other media that are less scientifically rigorous then the Conversation? Are you joking? We have an article right here that argues for the scientific consensus on climate change. You can't get less scientifically rigorous than that.
Stephanie Helder
Science Student
Chris,
I refer you to the wise words of Sam Harris:
'Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count'
http://dotsub.com/view/bda8b283-118a-4c15-954c-7a6d31b62fef
Perhaps you would like to set up your own news source where anyone you like can express their opinion. That is not the domain of the conversation, here expertise are valued. I think you are getting a pretty good look in on this organ through the comments section, your spreading of misinformation can do damage in the form of confusing those that are not scientifically literate enough to judge for themselves what is real and what isn't.
Chris Harper
Engineer
You know, I was going to make polite comments, and act to persuade, but what is the point?
This whole consensus claptrap has moved from being a bad joke to now being a risible insult to the intelligence.
The warmist forecasts are so off and the claims are so overblown and divorced from observed reality that we have to accept that it is all a matter of faith and is now completely divorced from science and rational disputation.
Denial of observations is endemic amongst warmists these days…
Read moreChris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"Denial of observations is endemic .. these days"
That's right, for example the myth that global warming stopped over the last 16 years when there was more likely 0.14 deg C of warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1997/trend
But as we all know, you can't stop denialists denying.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Cook,
The far larger gap to be closed is the 'Credibility Gap' rather than the 'Consensus Gap'.
You brilliantly highlighted the problem in The Conversation, "Then there's implicitary denial where people's behaviour does not align with their beliefs." when describing the gulf between climate change believers public protestations and their private actions.
A few deniers like myself are nowhere near the threat to the earth as those who call for others to stop burning fossil fuels, then choose to burn JetA1 fuel to fly overseas for their own pleasure.
Perhaps, in a future article, you might explore how this contradiction in climate change believers ethics might be addressed.
Gerard Dean
Sylvia Robinson
Archaeologist
Gerard, do you need explaining why that is a terrible argument? Or have you been told several times already? This week.
Meagan Kae
Media Production at Meagan Kae Pty Ltd
Can someone please tell me what percentage of climate change is caused by humans and what percentage is naturally occurring?
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
Human-caused and natural radiation forcing is shown in FAQ 2.1 Figure 2 of WG1 AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html
Net human-caused radiation forcing in 2005 was 1.6±1.0 W/m2. Natural radiation forcing was 0.1(+0.15-0.05) W/m2.
Meagan Kae
Media Production at Meagan Kae Pty Ltd
Ok, so that's approx 95% human. How is it possible then in the last 16 years we have seen almost no increase in temp?
What happened to stop the predicted increase?
If human is 95% shouldn't the temp graph always be increasing upwards?
Especially since our co2 output increased over that time period.
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
Meagan Kae - that is incorrect. The Earth has absorbed an enormous amount of heat in the last 16 years, but much of this (over 90%) is stored in the oceans. Indeed, as a whole the Earth has absorbed more heat in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years. See Levitus (2012) and Nuccitelli (2012). John Cook refers to this aspect in his post. Did you not read it?
What you are no doubt referring to are global surface air temperatures which have shown a small amount of warming in the…
Read moreRob Painting
logged in via Facebook
And no Meagan, we do not expect temperatures to increase incrementally year-after-year. That would require that La Nina and El Nino disappear entirely for starters. Given that these phenomena have been around for millions of years that seems very unlikely.
Chris Harper
Engineer
Megan,
Let me modify Rob Paintings comment: but it is thought possible that much of this (over 90%) could be stored in the oceans, although this tentative hypothesis is still to be validated.
There. Fixed.
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
What's depressing about the climate debate is that - unlike any other branch of science - no-one on either side is seriously interested in having their ideas challenged.
May I modestly say in my field, language teaching, everyone seems excited by new evidence suggesting how we learn languages. We've been happy to throw out old approaches - grammar-translation, language labs, humanistic 'caring and sharing in the language classroom' - when we find there's no evidence they work. Challenge us - show us we're wrong!
Why, by contrast, is everyone in climate science so dogmatic? It looks kind of ridiculous.
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"no-one on either side is seriously interested in having their ideas challenged"
So which side is it that fails to put their ideas up for peer-review FAR more often than the other?
What's really depressing is when someone fails to realise the difference between how much the sides are seriously interested in having their ideas challenged.
Rob Painting
logged in via Facebook
James, until you start doing some reading of the primary peer-reviewed literature, we can assume your comments amount to nothing more than tone-trolling. Let's be very clear about this there is no scientific debate, only a political one.