Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


The 97% consensus on global warming

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...

There is no consensus

"[...] And I'll mention that the stat on the 97% of - of scientists is based on one discredited study." (Ted Cruz)

At a glance

What is consensus? In science, it's when the vast majority of specialists agree about a basic principle. Thus, astronomers agree that the Earth orbits around the Sun. Biologists accept that tadpoles hatch out from frog-spawn and grow into adult frogs. Almost all geologists agree that plate tectonics is real and you'd be hard-placed to find a doctor who thinks smoking is harmless.

In each above case, something has been so thoroughly looked into that those who specialise in its study have stopped arguing about its basic explanation. Nevertheless, the above examples were all once argued about, often passionately. That's how progress works.

The reaching of scientific consensus is the product of an often lengthy time-line. It starts with something being observed and ends with it being fully explained. Let's look at a classic and highly relevant example.

In the late 1700s, the Earth-Sun distance was calculated. The value obtained was 149 million kilometres. That's incredibly close to modern measurements. It got French physicist Joseph Fourier thinking. He innocently asked, in the 1820s, something along these lines:

"Why is Planet Earth such a warm place? It should be an ice-ball at this distance from the Sun."

Such fundamental questions about our home planet are as attractive to inquisitive scientists as ripened fruit is to wasps. Fourier's initial query set in motion a process of research. Within a few decades, that research had experimentally shown that carbon dioxide has heat-trapping properties.

Through the twentieth century the effort intensified, particularly during the Cold War. At that time there was great interest in the behaviour of infra-red (IR) radiation in the atmosphere. Why? Because heat-seeking missiles home in on jet exhausts which are IR hotspots. Their invention involved understanding what makes IR tick.

That research led to the publication of a landmark 1956 paper by Gilbert Plass. The paper's title was, “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”. It explained in detail how CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. Note in passing that Plass used the term "Climatic Change" all the way back then. That's contrary to the deniers' frequent claim that it is used nowadays because of a recent and motivated change in terminology.

From observation to explanation, this is a classic illustration of the scientific method at work. Fourier gets people thinking, experiments are designed and performed. In time, a hypothesis emerges. That is a proposed explanation. It is made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Once a hypothesis is proposed, it becomes subject to rigorous testing within the relevant specialist science groups. Testing ensures that incorrect hypotheses fall by the wayside, because they don't stand up to scrutiny. But some survive such interrogation. As their supporting evidence mounts up over time, they eventually graduate to become theories.

Theories are valid explanations for things that are supported by an expert consensus of specialists. Gravity, jet aviation, electronics, you name it, all are based on solid theories. They are known to work because they have stood the test of time and prolonged scientific inquiry.

In climate science today, there is overwhelming (greater than 97%) expert consensus that CO2 traps heat and adding it to the atmosphere warms the planet. Whatever claims are made to the contrary, that principle has been established for almost seventy years, since the publication of that 1956 landmark paper.

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. None of us have the time or ability to learn about everything/ That's why we frequently defer to experts, such as consulting doctors when we’re ill.

The public often underestimate the degree of expert consensus that our vast greenhouse gas emissions trap heat and warm the planet. That is because alongside information, we have misinformation. Certain sections of the mass-media are as happy to trot out the latter as the former. We saw a very similar problem during the COVID-19 pandemic and it cost many lives.

For those who want to learn more, a much longer detailed account of the history of climate science is available on this website.

Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!

Further details

We know full well that we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. Without experienced people using their expertise to perform many vital tasks – and without new people constantly entering such occupations – society would quickly disintegrate.

The same is true of climate change: we defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Indeed, public perception of the scientific consensus with regard to global warming has been found to be an important gateway into other enlightened climate-related attitudes - including policy support. 

Nine consensus studies

Let's take a look at summaries of the key studies, featured in the graphic above, into the degree of consensus. These have been based on analyses of large samples of peer-reviewed climate science literature or surveys of climate and Earth scientists. These studies are available online through e.g. Google Scholar. That slightly different methodologies reached very similar conclusions is a strong indicator that those conclusions are robust.

Oreskes 2004

In this pioneering paper, a survey was conducted into all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change', published between 1993 and 2003. The work showed that not a single paper, out of the 928 examined, rejected the consensus position that global warming is man-made. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way.

Doran & Zimmerman 2009

A survey of 3,146 Earth scientists asked the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what was most interesting was the type of response compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of actively-publishing climatologists responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Anderegg et al. 2010

This study of 1,372 climate science researchers found that (i) 97–98% of the researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) as outlined by the IPCC and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. 

Cook et al. 2013

A Skeptical Science-based analysis of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming', published between 1991 and 2011, found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Verheggen et al. 2014

Results were presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was at the time unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, it was found that as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quantitative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgement or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols.

Stenhouse et al. 2014

In a survey of all 1,854 American Meteorological Society members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of views on global warming, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise, and perceived organisational conflict.

Carlton et al 2015

Commenting that the extent to which non-climate scientists are skeptical of climate science had not so far been studied via direct survey, the authors did just that. They undertook a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) stated that mean temperatures have risen. Of the subset that agreed temperatures had risen, the following question was then asked of them: "do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The affirmative response to that query was 96.66%.

Cook et al. 2016

In 2015, authors of the above studies joined forces to co-author a paper, “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”. Two key conclusions from the paper are as follows:

(i) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, somewhere between 90% and 100% of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. (ii) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Lynas et al. 2021

In this paper, from a dataset of 88,125 climate-related peer-reviewed papers published since 2012, these authors examined a randomly-selected subset of 3000 such publications. They also used a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical papers in the whole dataset. Twenty-eight sceptical papers were identified within the original dataset using that approach, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. It was concluded that the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, expressed as a proportion of the total publications, exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Myers et al. 2021

This study revisited the 2009 consensus among geoscientists, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among them. The authors sent 10,929 invitations to participate in the survey, receiving 2,780 responses. In addition, the number of scientific publications by these self-identified experts in the field of climate change research was quantified and compared to their survey response on questions about climate change. Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that agreement on anthropogenic global warming was high at 91% to 100% and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists agreed that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Among the subset with the highest level of expertise, these being independently-confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer-reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019, there was 100% agreement.

Public Polls and Consensus

Opinion polls are not absolute in the same way as uncontestable scientific evidence but they nevertheless usefully indicate in which way public thinking is heading. So let's look at a couple taken 13 years apart. A 15-nation World Public Opinion Poll in 2009 PDF), with 13,518 respondents, asked, among other questions, “Is it your impression that among scientists, most think the problem is urgent and enough is known to take action?” Out of all responses, just 51% agreed with that. Worse, in six countries only a minority agreed: United States (38%), Russia (23%), Indonesia (33%), Japan (43%), India (48%), and Mexico (48%). Conversely, the two highest “agree” scores were among Vietnamese (69%) and Bangladeshis (70%) - perhaps unsurprisingly.

The two other options people had to choose from were that “views are pretty evenly divided” (24% of total respondents), or “most think the problem is not urgent, and not enough is known to take action“ (15%). American and Japanese respondents scored most highly on “views are pretty evenly divided” (43 and 44% respectively).

How such a pervasive misperception arose, regarding the expert consensus on climate change, is no accident. Regular readers of this website's resources will know that instead, it was another product of deliberate misinformation campaigning by individuals and organizations in the United States and other nations around the world. These are people who campaign against action to reduce carbon emissions because it suits their paymasters if we continue to burn as much as possible. 

Step forward to 2022 and the situation has perhaps improved, but there's still some way to go. A recent poll, Public Perceptions on Climate change (PDF), was conducted by the Policy Institute, based at King's College London, UK. It quizzed samples of just over 2,000 people from each of six countries (UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Italy and Germany). The survey asked the question: “To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening?” The following averages were returned: the UK sample thought 65%, the average of the whole survey was 68% and the highest was Ireland at 71%. Clearly, although public perception of expert consensus is growing, there's still plenty of room for strategies to communicate the reality and to shield people from the constant drip-feed of misinformation.

Expert and Public Consensus

Finally, let's consider the differences between expert and public consensus. Expert consensus is reached among those who have studied complex problems and know how to collect and work with data, to identify what constitutes evidence and evaluate it. This is demanding work requiring specific skill-sets and areas of expertise, preparation for which requires years of study and training. 

Public consensus, in contrast, tends to occur only when something is blindingly obvious. For example, a serial misinformer would struggle if they tried running a campaign denying the existence of owls. Everyone already knows that of course there are owls. There is public consensus because we see and hear owls, for real or on the TV or radio. But complex issues are more prone to the antics of misinformers. We saw examples of misinformation during the COVID pandemic, in some cases with lethal outcomes when misinformed people failed to take the risks seriously. There's a strong parallel with climate change: it is imperative we accept the expert consensus and not kick the can down the road until the realisation it is real becomes universal – but utterly inescapable.

Update May 1, 2024: Corrected a typo in the publication year for Plass (1956) in the at-a-glance section.

Last updated on 26 May 2023 by John Mason. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further reading

Richard Black at the BBC investigates whether there is a bias against skepticism in the scientific community.

More on what we're talking about when we say "scientific consensus,"  in an essay founded on Denial101x and scientific literature: Scientific Consensus isn’t a “Part” of the Scientific Method: it’s a Consequence of it. (or via

Further viewing

The "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" video series examines the list of "32,000 leading skeptical scientists."

Naomi Oreskes gives a thorough presentation of the development of our scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming:

Lead author John Cook explains the 2016 "Consensus on consensus" paper.

Here is a video summary of the various studies quantifying the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, as well as the misinformation campaigns casting doubt on the consensus.


Many thanks to Joe Crouch for his efforts in tracking down scientific organizations endorsing the consensus as well as links to their public statements.


On 21 Jan 2012, we revised 'the skeptic argument' with a minor quote formatting correction.


Prev  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Comments 326 to 350 out of 802:

  1. [complaint about moderation snipped]
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please read the comments policy, posts that contravene the comments policy are likely to be deleted. Of course moderators being only human sometimes miss comments that should be moderated (although the one you point out is not acturally an ad-hominem). This is more likely to happen if we have to spend all our time deleting repeated complaints about the moderation here. Keep on-topic and observe the comments policy and your comments won't be deleted. It isn't as if you have not been warned more than once before.
  2. It is extraordinarily how these allegations of corruption get made despite the evidence to the contrary. The Cuccinelli witch hunt went no where - despite having huge financial and legal resources at their disposal. Not only that, be even Steve McIntyre said that corruption was not the issue (not that his allegations of misconduct where upheld either). The fact is, when there is a perfectly good paper-trail (as all public funding bodies maintain) available and when nothing is found despite huge investigative effort... one has to conclude that there is neither smoke nor fire.
  3. This following interview with Bob Carter might be useful to this debate. Bob Carter, to me, seems to be a mild and reasonable fellow who also speaks with a soft and pleasing accent regarding the heat of climate change that is indeed man-made; the heat of the debate seen here and all over the world as well. He is in fact a paleoclimatologist. I subscribe entirely to his comments here: Would this place either himself or me, as one endorsing his comments, as "a denier" in the vernacular of the partisans here who either speak-for the editorial process of this website or are indeed directly involved with it. Your comments are welcome.
  4. Bruce, The specific topic of this thread is "is there a scientific consensus". Displaying the opinion of a single scientist does not refute this claim. Nobody is arguing that dissenting opinion does not exist, only that it is a small minority when considering those with the most expertise on the subject. Bob Carter's claim is that no evidence exists for an anthropogenic source for recent warming. That claim is addressed here and here. Please review those posts and place any relevant arguments within the appropriate thread. Thus far you have not provided any specifics about why you doubt AGW (and this thread would not be the appropriate place to do so).
  5. RE: Bob Carter's claim is that no evidence exists for an anthropogenic source for recent warming. He made no such claim. I believe you have inadvertently created a straw-man. Bob Carter clearly has stated that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas and that we are releasing more carbon into the fluid surface of the earth. Of course he also points out the fact that agriculture (wheat fields etc) represents another facet of anthropogenic climate change. It's the fact that growing crops and burning fossil fuels appears to redound to well understood benefits for mankind that recommends these activities to us. Computer modeling of various input scenarios might be interesting, but none of these models are predictive in nature and have established no such understanding towards making some reasoned fact based decision that curtailing either is in fact beneficial. These are thrusts of his claims.
  6. Bruce>He made no such claim. I believe you have inadvertently created a straw-man. Check out your first video at 1:10, quote: "... no evidence at all that any these changes have anything to do with human activity or influence" Anyways, I'm not interested in Bob Carter's claims, I'm curious about your claims. Please take a look here, and post your specific scientific points in the appropriate thread. Don't worry we'll be able to see your posts wherever you put it, note the comments link at the top that displays all recent comments across all threads. I think we are all in agreement that evidence is better than consensus. So please, indulge us and bring forward your comments on the evidence (in the appropriate thread and in your own words, not Bob Carter's).
  7. Bruce Frykman, you're confused about what scientific consensus is. The subject has by now been extensively reasearched. The results of the research all point in the direction of one coherent whole, which can be called the consensus model of Earh climate. It is established enough that it has been elevated to the level of a scientific theory. Please do not start ranting about "theories are not fact"; if you know anything about what a scientific theory is, you know how stupid that argument is. That is what the consensus is. It is a consensus of research results, built over many years. It is not some sort of vote in which people get to say what they believe. It is constrained by the results of a a very large body of scientific work. Science has not been done by consensus, it's the other way around. As for Bob Carter, all you are demonstrating is how biased you are. You believe him because you like what he says. Can you be sure that he is not corrupt? No, just like you can't be sure that all the other scientists you half accuse have done anything wrong. But in his case, he says what you want to hear, so you trust him. This is the exact opposite of a skeptical attitude. I'l add that Carter's record of publications in climate is less than impressive. In the El-Nino paper, he tried to push a conclusion that was not supported by the data. Talk from "skeptics" about scientists under pressure always makes me smile. James Hansen has been under pressure, from his governement, with an official order; isn't that exactly the kind of thing you object? Did you object in that case? If not, why not? Cuccinelli engaged on a whitch hunt/fishing expedition against a scientist he didn't like and did so purely for political reasons, abusing the legal and political power given to him. Did you object to that? These are real, observable, documented occurrences of what you complain about. But they don't mandate your protest because they are perpetrated against those who say stuff you dislike. On the other hand the accusations you are trying to relay here have not yet been substantiated. No real evidence has been brought, zilch. The so-called climategate has only revealed how solid the science actually is. And yes, it is possible that Bob Carter is lying. Or that he's twisting the truth, or misrepresenting it, or taking it out of context. If you think all these other people are lying without a shred of evidence that they are, why would that not also be a possibility?
  8. Good point he did say what you said he did. I'm not sure what we are calling recent warming, are we talking about the early 20th (warming) , mid 20th (cooling) later 20th (warning) recent (cooling). I believe Bob was saying that although CO2 will might well contribute to slight warming, any recent perturbations of the climate might well be in response to many other factors not at all related to man's use of fossil fuels. Do you have some proof that this statement is scientifically unsupportable (please no appeals to authority - just give us your own assessment) I don't know the basis of your interest in my claims since I can never be clear of what you have seen of them before they are deleted. Perhaps if you were to cut and save them before they are deleted you could very circuitously and circumspectly refer to them in some kind of code or something like that within your own comments. As to which of my claims are "scientific," would it be helpful to provide links to partisans of the issue as most here do in order to bolster defense of "the science" You must understand that I am operating under severe restraints here. Any criticism of the processes of this science will quickly be deleted after being characterized as unscientific. I was never aware that criticism of the processes of science would be characterized as unscientific. There is data that has been purported to represent the global mean surface temperature of the earth over decades to a high degree of accuracy. This data is not raw collected data but highly modified data collected under ever changing conditions as to how where and when it is collected. I am not in possession of the means which this data has been modified to corroborate the idea that the abstraction called can be accurately constructed and measured. I could of course instrument my own back yard but no one can or has instrumented the earth to collect global mean temperature. I could of course refer you to endless argumentation over the process of collecting and modifying the data that purports to measure this abstraction but that would simply be argumentation by appeal to authority which I am sure that your are aware represents fallacious argumentation.
    Response: [muoncounter] The way to bolster your claims is to provide links to actual science, rather than partisans. Here are some hints to help avoid deletion of your comments:

    Criticism of scientific processes is not quickly deleted; criticism of the scientists is. Criticism of the science based on hearsay, accusation or other unsubstantiated rumor-mongering is deleted. Arguments over the reliability of data collection and analysis methods have their own threads. However, those arguments must not be cherry-picked; they must also be tempered by the fact that multiple means of measurement often report the same thing, ie, it is not sufficient to claim 'the thermometers are all wrong' if, for example, satellites confirm those temperature readings.

    If you find these basic parameters to be 'severe restraints,' perhaps there are better forums for your style of commentary.
  9. #336 Bruce - It's hard to trust what you say when you wander into tired old arguments by your second sentence. The world is not cooling in recent times, as evidenced by 2010 being the warmest or 2nd warmest year on record (depending on your dataset) and the 2000's being the warmest decade. It is interesting to plot the global temperature data with a regression line from 1975-2000, then extrapolate that line through the last 10 years of temperature data. Most residuals lie above the line, indicating that this decade was even warmer than would have been forecast in 2000. Tamino's excellent post Riddle Me This illustrates this beautifully. And yes, there's a scientific consensus about that...
  10. Bruce, Don't worry I have seen your deleted comments. My request was simple, let's forget the whole "is their consensus"/"isn't there consensus" argument and focus on the actual evidence. Do you agree with this approach? If so, the next steps are simple: organize your own thoughts on the evidence (do not just summarize what Bob Carter has to say), then find where the subject is covered in this site's List of Skeptic Arguments. If the content of the post does not address your concerns, then feel free to post your thoughts within that thread. Your posts will be clearly visible to anyone checking the recent comments link from the top menu. No need to clutter this thread with off-topic discussion. Is this not a reasonable request?
  11. RE: "Criticism of scientific processes is not quickly deleted; criticism of the scientists is." I always thought of a "scientist" as an individual and I am unaware that I have unfairly characterized any scientist either living or dead on this forum. Just who is(are) "the scientists" that I may be sure not to offend any of them? Further, who confers the title "scientist." I used to have some very bright little girls next door who collected and classify insects in their own back yard. They make observations and collected data as to how their numbers varied from year to year. Were these little girls acting as scientists and would they be included in your group called "the scientists?"
    Response: [muoncounter] Your record of comments over the past few days shows that you find it easier to unfairly characterize a group than pick out an individual. There's a word for that kind of behavior and it ain't pretty. If you need to have the word 'scientist' defined for you, then you really are in the wrong place. Further nonsense like this will be deleted on sight.
  12. Turns out, I'm a "mild and reasonable fellow" and, what's more, I speak with a soft and pleasing accent... Having established my credibility. I've read Mr. Frykmans' posts and have yet to see any evidence supporting his initial claims regarding corrupt practices. No acknowledgement of my reply regarding the practice of funding etc. Can we assume that Mr. Frykman has withdrawn these accusations and apologized?
  13. Bruce >Further, who confers the title "scientist." A scientist in the sense used here is one who actively practices the scientific method. More specifically, level of expertise in climate science is gaged by the amount of research published in relevant subject areas. This classification is discussed in the papers cited in this post.
    Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid the temptation to reply to these ludicrous questions of who is and who is not a 'scientist.'
  14. RE: PC- 335 RE: "It is a consensus of research results, built over many years. It is not some sort of vote in which people get to say what they believe. It is constrained by the results of a a very large body of scientific work. OK, I get it, science demands precise data but ethereal and formless consensus that cannot be quantified. Only politics requires precise consensus. RE: "Science has not been done by consensus, it's the other way around." I get it; consensus is a meta-process that builds science that can stand entirely upon its own legs. ( -Snip- ) RE: "As for Bob Carter, all you are demonstrating is how biased you are." Of course I am biased, to be human is to be biased. I would never trust anyone who claimed he was not. Its not the bias of our individuality that is of any importance but only that our biases may be freely aired. Science operates in a world of humans and of human bias. Your position appears to support the notion that there are a class of people who are not biased and are therefore what? ( -Snip- ) RE: "You believe him because you like what he says." Of course I do, and you don't like him for the reason that you don't like what he says - let him say it. RE: "Can you be sure that he is not corrupt?" I'm not a religious person, but I do find lessons to be taken from faith: Have you ever listened to Handel's beautiful Messiah? - "And we shall be raised incorruptable" ( -Snip- ) RE: "No, just like you can't be sure that all the other scientists you half accuse have done anything wrong." I 'have' accused no one, I do not trust the processes of climate science. I might make the same judgment of the processes of my own physician without accusing him of anything. RE: "In the El-Nino paper, he tried to push a conclusion that was not supported by the data." Oh by that you mean he is human? RE: "James Hansen has been under pressure, from his governement, with an official order; isn't that exactly the kind of thing you object?" If I can stand in the kitchen and take the heat I don't see why he can't - I'm not paid to do this.
    Response: [DB] Off-topic perambulations snipped. "I'm not paid to do this." Neither are we, pal. Neither are we.
  15. Bruce@343 "Is this really a debate forum?" No. It is a forum for the presentation and discussion of scientific evidence.
  16. Bruce Frykman - The major problems that I see with your posts are: - Ad Hominem accusations of distortion against the majority of climate scientists with no evidence for same. - Posting ideology rather than facts. - Major, major tendencies to run off-topic. Do you have any science to present? Evidence? This site is set up to discuss science, after all, not politics. If you don't, then it's your opinions versus assembled facts. Quite frankly, in my view, your opinions aren't holding up very well...
  17. RE: # Bruce@343 "Is this really a debate forum?" "No. It is a forum for the presentation and discussion of scientific evidence." OK, which of your have presented "your" scientific evidence here; not other's - "yours". So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone. If you are merely linking to stuff you like, then all you are doing is cheer-leading your cause. If you are simply denigrating others by linking to science you don't like then your are engaging in something but it is clearly not science. ( -Snip- ) RE: "- Ad Hominem accusations of distortion against the majority of climate scientists with no evidence for same." # Where is the ad hominem? Have I called anyone's comments "deplorable?", "rants?" Clearly you have! How have I distorted "the majority" of climate scientists? Who or what represents this "majority?" Do any of you have any data of figures that substantiate what and who represents this majority? I belong to several groups but I would never be mindless enough to suggest that "group think" constitutes is my think. It all sounds rather militaristic. In discussing all of this science do any of you ever favor one individual scientist's ideas over another's? If you did, would not this be casting an ad hominem towards the group's endorsed thought processes by your own standards? Re: "Posting ideology rather than facts" What is my "ideology?" RE: Major, major tendencies to run off-topic. Guilty, I have devoted major major tendencies to discuss why you have deleted my comments.
    Response: [DB] "So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone." Try actually reading the posts and the linked source studies. Staying on-topic on a science-discussion (not debate) website is a must, not a want. Adherence to the Comments Policy is also not optional. Complaining about having to comply with it is a surefire ticket to forcing the moderators to act. Maybe you might want to perhaps consider other venues with less restrictive policies?
  18. Hummm two more looong post by Mr. Frykman and still no evidence to back up his earlier claims. Clearly not here to present nor discuss facts.
  19. Bruce@345 "So far I have seen no scientific evidence of any kind here being presented here by anyone." Then you should be doing more reading and less typing. This site is chock full of links to scientific studies and data that support the the premise that the earth is warming and that human activity is driving the change in temperature. Not many people here are practicing climate scientists so not much original work is generated, thus the links to others work. If you have a published paper of your own or links to studies that you think are relevant to the discussion then please post them in the appropriate thread. As for this thread, you have not provided anything constructive to the discussion (not debate! not argument!) of the original post. Your first comment @311 was an accusation that Climate Science is driven by politics rather than data with no supporting evidence. That is not how this site works. If you are going to take a position you need to support it somehow.
  20. 347 pbjamm Indeed. But he posts a lot of hot air... ... Gilles' be along in a moment to claim that that's the reason the arctic is melting.
    Response: [DB] DNFTT.
  21. Bruce, I would characterize science is learning to use data to overcome our biases. Some non-scientists learn this; some scientists dont. Overturning AGW is straightforward at one level. Current climate theory (from which AGW is a consequence) makes a huge no. of predictions. If reality turns out different using both the margins of errors in data and margins of error in the prediction, then the theory must be modified. Of course, even more convincing would a different better theory that explained all current observations and had stronger predictive power. Nothing doing so far on either front, but who knows? Convince me. So, care to tell us what data would it take to change your mind? What's the point at which you decide that you are wrong?
  22. DNFTT is in order indeed.
  23. I'm very new to this site. Credit where due: you lay out your arguments fairly well and quite clearly. HOWEVER, I watched your "Crock of the Week" video "32000 Scientists". What are the odds that the only video I've yet clicked would be a statistical outlier that doesn't apply to all your other "Crock of the Week" videos? The surely-typical video in question is an almost completely contentless ad-hominem attack on AGW skeptic Dr. Frederick Seitz, on Fox News, and at one point on "right wing causes", accompanied by lurid video of smokers smoking through their tracheal holes, and movie clips of the retards from "Deliverance". The ending statement is "...or you can die from lung cancer". It is incongruously opposite of the on-topic and content-heavy article it accompanies. It is propaganda at its most obvious and blatant. You have no right to expect your commenters to stick to the science if the material your administrators post does not do the same. Hence this comment of mine is not science because some of your own subject matter is not. And judging from your Comments Policy and several of your moderators' posts, I wonder if I am permitted to point out ANY of this. Your Policy says, "Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted." Propaganda is in fact all of those things, and I have no honest choice but to accuse you of posting propaganda, because you did. Will my comment deleted for telling the verifiable truth? Your Policy also says, "No ad hominem attacks", and in #336, "muoncounter" responds to a commenter by saying: "Criticism of scientific processes is not quickly deleted; criticism of the scientists is." Since your video criticizes Dr. Seitz and his associations but does not deal with his actual ideas, it is ad hominem by the standards of your Policy and should be deleted by the standards of muoncounter. Will your commenters have to continue obeying a prohibition that you yourselves ignore? Do I even dare even mention your Policy in the first place? In #345, "DB" responds to a commenter by saying, "Adherence to the Comments Policy is also not optional. Complaining about having to comply with it is a surefire ticket to forcing the moderators to act. Maybe you might want to perhaps consider other venues with less restrictive policies?" Your policy is fine. Let's see if I need to opt for a "venue" where EVERYONE is held to it. As said: You have no right to expect your commenters to stick to the "science only" if the material your administrators post does not do the same. As I see it, your choices are to 1) loosen up the Comments Policy so that it may devolve to the very low standards set by the "32000 Scientists" video, 2) apply the Comments Policy TO that video and promptly remove it, or 3) delete my comment so that you don't have to face your own contradiction. You should be aware - and I'm sure you are - that one of the skeptics' complaints about AGW believers is that your alleged "consensus" in the IPCC and elsewhere isn't built on science, but on double standards and suppression of dissent. I wonder if THAT is one of your 150+ topics on here...?

    [Dikran Marsupial] The "crock of the week" video is not "our" video, it comes from IMHO the video is not an ad-hominem as it does address the substance of the issue, namely that the "32000 list" is meaningless as the vast majority of the signatories have no relevant expertise. Personally the style is perhaps not my cup of tea, or yours, but as they say "chacun à son goût". It would clearly be unreasonable to require every link to another site posted on SkS to conform to SkS's comments policy. Sadly not all of the useful information out there is conveyed in the generally very restrained manner you find here.


    N.B. Moderator trolling comments such as "Will my comment deleted for telling the verifiable truth?" and "delete my comment so that you don't have to face your own contradiction." do you no favours. If you sincerely want to change things, setting out (happily unsuccessfully) to annoy is rarely a good way to achieve your aims.

    [DB] Additionall, please refrain from the use of all-caps (that Comments Policy thing-y).

  24. Chuck PRIVATE... You need to realize, first, that the video you're commenting on is not a product of the Skeptical Science site. It is a product of Peter Sinclair. I also seem to continually see people inaccurately using the term "ad hom" to anything they believe is insulting. Peter points out in the video that the tactics used by Seitz and others are the same being used against the science of climate change. That makes it, to my understanding, NOT an ad hom attack.
  25. Aye, Chuck, what Rob said, and if you think that claims about Seitz's integrity are not well-founded, do some research. Here's a good starting place. Ad hominem is the technique of attacking the individual as a substitute for attacking the individual's ideas. If I say that Seitz lacked moral integrity at times when he was working for the tobacco industry, I am attacking Seitz the man--but it's not an ad hominem attack, because I'm not substituting this argument to avoid confronting Seitz's ideas. Seitz at the very least consistently allowed himself to be strongly associated with people who did lack moral integrity at various times in their lives (unless you subscribe to Randian morality). Consensus is a political subject more than it is scientific. Science provides the evidence, but most people don't have the time to review the science. They still need to engage in the democratic process, though, and so they look for experts to tell them what to think. Consensus works as a strong form of expert testimony. Mass media agents also act as expert testimony in the same way. These agents are opinion makers, and not all mass media agents push the same opinion. There are hundreds of analyses of Fox News that reveal a right-wing (both economic and social, paradoxically at times) agenda. There are perhaps thousands of reports and studies that reveal the same right-wing political stance to be strongly associated with a position that global warming is either not happening, not our fault, or not bad. The first two positions are not consistent with observation and physics (if you have a contrary claim, bring forth the evidence on the appropriate thread). The third position is an ongoing wait-and-see kind of deal, and so far things aren't looking good. The science also supports a high probability that things will get bad. Now, given that, how is making reference to economic conservatives, the self-identified "right," in any way propaganda? Their positions are one of the reasons why a site like this exists. If you looked around a little on any of the threads, you'd see a clear pattern emerging: self-proclaimed libertarians tend to disbelieve that AGW is happening or is bad. Propaganda is a systematic institutional effort to bring about a specific change in beliefs (and it was once an acceptable term). Look at what the Koch brothers (unabashedly economic right-wingers) are doing and tell me that this is not propaganda. Are posters on this site--a site devoted to testing the BS against the science--not allowed to attack the instruments (living and artifactual) of such propaganda when the connection is quite clear? When propaganda bots attack, it is acceptable to attack the human, because the human has ceased to be human and is simply a robot or a paid (sometimes) repeating machine. It is acceptable to attack anyone who willfully ignores evidence and engagement.

Prev  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us