American Unitarian Conference Forum

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Tha...le8641.htm

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

"The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

"These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself."

I know...it looks like a one note song....the reason is that for whatever reason...and there are several...much of the movement has gone beyond science and concern over the environment to a quasi-religious one. I think it does so in a very detrimental way it introduces intolerance and retro-religious elements....from nature worship, Gaia worship, misanthropy...whatever humans do is evil....in addition to elements I won't go into re economics and politics as discussed before.

So, to answer your question...this movement contains a lot of non-scientific motives that intersect on religious and secular truths. As a Unitarian...seeking freedom, faith and reason...I see an awful lot of those qualities missing in the movement that wants to have a significant affect on our lives. Most mainline churches have almost uniformly jumped on the bandwagon....including the UUA. I think a contra voice is valid.

There is room for disagreement....obviously...I just like to see such issues handled in the most scientifically rigorous way without the religious-politicking that takes place. I think it is important for people who are bombarded with a certain view to know that there are other legitimate contra-views. Let the reader decide....at least from a basis of more information.

I do believe the issue has manifestly religious overtones....which is why I bring it up here.

Again, sorry if these posts strike a nerve....my intention is to present findings that are informational and that may add greater understanding of the relevant issues.

Here is an example of the religious / green intersection:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment...349163.ece

"PRIEST OFFERS GREEN CONFESSION

Forgotten to recycle any newspapers or tin cans recently? Feeling guilty because you neglected to carbon offset your flight to somewhere, anywhere, outside England this summer? The Roman Catholic Church is at hand with a new line in "green confessions" to help eco-sinners to find forgiveness. Dom Anthony Sutch, the Benedictine monk who resigned as head of Downside School to become a parish priest in Suffolk, will be at the county's Waveney Greenpeace festival this weekend to hear eco-confessions in what is thought to be the first dedicated confessional booth of its kind.

Vested in a green chasuble-style garment made from recycled curtains, and in a booth constructed of recycled doors, he will hear the sins of of those who have not recycled the things they ought to have done and who have consumed the things they ought not to have done. Father Sutch tries to practise what he preaches but has turned the heating down so low at his church of St Benet's that at least one parishioner has fled to the warmer care of a neighbouring priest for winter services.

He told The Times: "It is not, I hope, blasphemous to do this. I do not think it is. It is just an attempt to make people conscious of the way they live. The Church is aware of green issues and of how aware we have to be of how we treat the environment. "I know the Pope has now set up his own airline, but I am told the Vatican will be planting trees every time it flies. I do think the way we treat our environment is important. "There is a huge amount of greed in the West. We have to be aware of the consequences of how we live."

If this makes a person feel better and more responsible...so be it....I note the "greed" comment....but will pass on commentary.

Being a historian, I often come across statements about consensus. I should point out that a true consensus considers all experts in the field, not just those who have published papers on the topic. In fact, most papers published in my own field take issue with generally-accepted opinions. After all, that's why one publishes. I would think that in science it is much the same.

Ah, but science does not operate on "consensus"...it is tested and verified...consensus does not carry weight in science....after all...it was consensus that Newtonian physics governed the universe until Einstein came along. The point being...science has no role for consensus otherwise it is mere conjecture. Copernicus showed the weakness of consensus in science. It was consensus that a new ice age was beginning in 1975.

This article by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe sums things up:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori...l_warming/

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy -- as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced."

I would argue that many are making the hypothesis a religious and ideological dogma....just look at the proponents and what they say.

It's the same in history. But that's not the point. The article was trying to establish what the consensus is. Right? I am just remarking on how that should be established, if that is what one's goal is.

I agree if one is seeking consensus...you examine all of the opinions, conjectures etc. about a subject and come to an informed opinion consensus)....however...consensus does not constitute proof and is not part of the scientific method. The aim of the article was to show that there is no clear consensus as has been said over and over. The implication being made by various parties is that "the debate is over because we have a consensus." The error being made by many is to think of consensus as implying a scientific proof.

I imagine with historians, where clear evidence exists, they would not rely on consensus, however; as interpretation is often unclear and debated....and conclusions are often not subject to the scientific method...consensus of historians may carry more weight..though it is not absolute as an interpretation does not constitute "proof". The "unorthodox, heretical, renegade" historian is often right in the end.

It is the consensus in the Christian religion that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is part of the Godhead (trinity).....proof? No...

I agree with that. I was remarking only on the claims of the article.

And I was saying it used the wrong method to show this. So it failed in its goal.

David,

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say:

"I should point out that a true consensus considers all experts in the field, not just those who have published papers on the topic."

How does one consider all experts if they have not published? How do they become an acknowledged expert if their research is unknown?

Would you describe the method used as a survey? What method would be more appropriate when analyzing the conclusion of various papers?

One is an expert usually if they have received a degree in that field. They would have conducted much research on the topic in their graduate studies, but they would not necessarily have published on it, because the field encompasses a large variety of topics, and each expert in the field cannot possible write on all topics within his or her field.

To do a proper survey, one would have to contact all scientists who have a degree in climate science.