The overwhelming consensus on climate change

The climate is changing, and we are the primary cause. These are simple facts that are supported by a vast body of evidence and agreed upon by virtually all experts. Nevertheless, many people continue to think that the science isn’t “settled” and there is widespread disagreement among experts. Unfortunately, these myths have been propagated and supported by very active misinformation campaigns, so I want to take a few minutes to explain why they are incorrect. First I will explain what we mean when we say that a topic is “settled” or that there is a “consensus,” then I will demonstrate that such a consensus exists for the topic of anthropogenic climate change.

“Settled” science

The Logic of Science.

 First, I need to explain what I mean by “settled science,” because there are many people who argue adamantly that science is never “settled” because it is always possible that some future discovery will overturn the current thinking. That is technically true, but it can be misleading and requires clarification.

It is true that science, by its very nature, does not provide “proof.” Rather, science shows us what is most likely true given the current evidence. So to that extent, it is true that science is never 100% “settled,” because it is always technically possible there is something we have missed. However, there is a huge difference between a technical possibility and practical doubt. For example, it is technically possible that we are wrong about smoking causing cancer. It is technically possible that all of the countless studies on smoking and cancer are wrong and smoking is actually safe or even beneficial. Further, you can even find a handful of doctors that argue that we are wrong about smoking causing cancer. Does that mean that the science isn’t “settled” or that there is serious debate on the topic? Of course not! The topic has been so well studied so many times by so many people that the odds that we are wrong are insanely low. They are so low that for all intents and purposes, we can treat them as if they are zero. The notion that smoking causes cancer is “settled” in the sense that it is supported by such a massive and consistent body of evidence that it is extraordinarily unlikely that it is wrong, and we must act as if it is correct until such time as compelling evidence arises to the contrary.

Read the Logic of Science story - “The overwhelming consensus on climate change.”

Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real?

Up until a few years ago, Richard Muller was often quoted by sceptics as a credible, high-profile scientist who doubted the consensus on climate change.

As climate change has become politicised,
many find it difficult to change their position.

Today, he starts his lectures by stating a few things he believes to be facts.

"Al Gore has grossly exaggerated global warming. And if you watch his movie you have more misinformation than information.

"However, global warming is real. It is caused by humans. It is caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases, and I personally feel we have to stop it somehow.”

In 2010, Professor Muller from Berkeley University was funded to carry out a comprehensive study by a group of individuals who doubted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data.

They believed that urban heat islands, data-selection bias, and inaccurate climate models were being glossed over by scientists.

Read the ABC News story by Nick Kilvert - “Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real?”

Scope 2017 survey: Economists say action on carbon is vital, or say nothing at all

Ai Group's Julie Toth said market mechanisms
 should be used to meet national commitments
to substantially cut emissions. 

There is no consensus. Economists either believe it is vital that Australia becomes a low-carbon intensity economy, or that the issue is so unimportant – or perhaps that it is so politically divisive – that they choose not to volunteer an opinion.

Asked about the importance of reducing the country's carbon footprint and how best to do it, more than half of 27 economists from industry, consultancy, academia and finance questioned for the annual BusinessDay Scope survey agreed it was a must.

Another 10 left the question blank. Whether this indicates a lack of interest or the contentious nature of climate change policy is unclear.

But none of those who did answer made the case that cleaning up the economy did not matter. They overwhelmingly said action should be swift and include a market-based carbon pricing scheme.

Read Adam Morton’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Scope 2017 survey: Economists say action on carbon is vital, or say nothing at all.”

97% consensus is wrong as it is even higher now!

I

n May, Last Week Tonight host John Oliver attempted to visually demonstrate what a true debate on climate change should look like.

Instead of bringing out one expert on either side of the issue, Oliver brought on set 97 scientists who support evidence that humans are causing global warming to argue with three climate skeptics—“a statistically representative climate change debate,” he said.

The sketch was based on the “climate consensus,” the notion that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are part of the problem.

But if Oliver really wanted to be up-to-date on his stats, he would have put 99.99 scientists on one side of the desk.

That’s according to James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, who reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014.

Read the takepart story - “The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Wrong—It’s Even Higher”.

Twenty five talk about whjy climate change is happening

T

here are only a few issues more contentious than climate change in American political life.

But while the climate change debate rages in some quarters, in others, most notably among those who study the climate, there is wide consensus.

It’s for this reason that The Weather Channel has adopted a position on climate change that can generally be summed up as follows: we report the science, and the science consistently says climate change is real, humans are causing it, and we must prepare for its effects.

While the long-term effects of climate change are broadly agreed upon – an increase in extreme weather and changes to once-consistent weather patterns – the short-term effects can be difficult to pinpoint. “Was this particular storm caused or exacerbated by climate change?” is often unknowable.

All of the interview subjects of Climate 25 are speaking based on the fact that climate change is happening.

Check out “The Climate 25”.

Reconciling differences can be doubly difficult when climate change is the subject

Reconciling differences in views about anything is often difficult in the extreme, but such a task becomes doubly so when the conversation shifts to climate change.

Exploring this challenge on The Conversation are a Lecturer in Behavioural Studies and Politics at Monash University, Ana-Maria Bliuc, and a Professor at University of Western Sydney, Craig McGarty.

Their story: “Overcoming the social barriers to climate consensus” argues that simply telling people that they are stupid is unlikely to convince them of the merit of your own view.

They say it is tempting to think that people who disagree with you are mad, bad or simply stupid, but point out that not only are such judgements usually wrong, but do little to advance your argument.

“Despite there being a near consensus in the scientific community that the primary driver of climate change is anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, and that we need to cut those emissions if we’re to keep global warming to a minimum, the public remains divided on the issue,” they write.

'Proved' or 'disproved' - check the affiliations before deciding

The idea that anything in science is either “proved” or “disproved” seems to deny the essence of what it is.

“Proof” is a standard upon science rarely relies rather, most views are either consensus or evidence based and even then there is a degree of doubt.

Climate change varies little from that thesis and although most scientists qualified to work in the atmospheric field have a consensus view that humans have damaged and are changing earth’s atmosphere, and so its weather, but still the conversation continues, as it should.

However, American meteorologist and co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, has argued that the theory of man-made climate change is no longer credible.

The UK website, “Express” told of Coleman’s change of heart in a story headed: “Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist”.