Consensus on climate change ignored to feed controversy
Tweet
The consensus of climate change experts is reflected in their endorsement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It states: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” As of 2007, no national or international scientific organization on the planet disputes this.
Climate change is a large area of study, in which there are differences of opinion about fine points. These contentious details do not invalidate the larger consensus that we are adversely affecting our global climate. A few experts and pieces of information lean one way, and the overwhelming body of evidence and increasing majority of experts lean another. To base policy decisions upon the former rather than the latter is absurd. To interpret 97 percent certainty as “debate” is absurd.
The false perception exists that there is still significant doubt. Where is that perception coming from?
Could the entire worldwide scientific community have been bought off with grant money? Perhaps there are some dollars leading in that direction, but I ultimately find it an improbable overall explanation. Where else might the dollars be headed, and where might they be coming from?
News organizations tend to benefit from reporting controversy, whether real or imaginary. Politicians often show a reluctance to base their policy on facts that contradict their positions, particularly when they’re receiving contributions from industries that have an interest in those positions. Could they be the sources of the “controversy?”
Ken Alleman,
professional writing senior
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Drifter
(02/15/10 12:46am)Report
Here we go again! Anytime people like you run out of argument, you resort to words like :
“Could the entire worldwide scientific community have been bought off with grant money?”
Wake up and smell the facts, not everybody agrees with your kind of folks, and without $$$ but with a bit of common sense!
Martin Leese
(02/15/10 1:19am)Report
Read “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore, 2009. They also have a website:
http://www.desmogblog.com/
They followed the money, and name names.
Todd
(02/15/10 10:02am)Report
Ken,
You ask where the doubt is coming from? Oh, probably from the almost weekly revelations that the IPCC report conainted false information and the leaked CRU e-mails show a disturbing pattern of cooking the books, quashing dissent and “fudge factoring.”
Kyle
(02/15/10 12:58pm)Report
Oh, you mean the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has been fed falsified data?
Yeah. That’s definitely a good reason to believe that the increase in temperature that licely might maybe exist, possibly is caused by greenhouse gas that may or may not be influencing this temperature increase that could possibly exist.
Yeah. I definitely probably maybe might believe that if it was likely that this data allegedly maybe was possibly correct, and actually representative of what is actually going on.
Maybe.
Kyle
(02/15/10 12:59pm)Report
licely=likely*
I swear, I don’t have lice.
;)
Hahaha
(02/15/10 2:04pm)Report
:)
Bob The Builder
(02/15/10 2:27pm)Report
Todd,
The leaked CRU e-mails showed no such thing. The fudged data, cooking the books, etc, only existed in the minds of people who wanted to prove scientific misconduct. The ‘tricks’ were all well established tools used in statistical analysis across almost all fields.
I know it’s hard for the average ego driver American to admit that they don’t know everything, but isn’t it possible that just maybe somebody that has been studying climate change for years, if not decades, knows a bit more than somebody who only skims analysis and reports put out by those who have the most to gain by not increasing regulation?
Jason
(02/15/10 3:18pm)Report
“The false perception exists that there is still significant doubt. Where is that perception coming from?”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”
There’s your answer. The conclusion is “likely,” based on “observed” data that shows correlation but not causality. Clearer for you?
Al Gore
(02/15/10 3:38pm)Report
Climate change is very real.
I’m super, duper serial.
Todd
(02/16/10 8:05am)Report
Bob,
Um …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Dan
(02/16/10 11:24am)Report
I agree with you, mostly. But seriously people, if you’re going to quote scientists and cite percentages of the scientific community, gimme some kind of a citation so I know you’re not a liar.
Hey Todd...
(02/17/10 8:59pm)Report
How about following up on your bogus story.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400
The whole “climategate” nonsense was debunked months ago. Get with the current news cycle. kthx
Todd
(02/18/10 8:36am)Report
Hey,
Yes, please do “get with the current news cycle.” The story you refer to is from December. The one I posted is from just a few days ago. kthx
Hey Todd...
(02/18/10 4:45pm)Report
We’re talking about empirical evidence from disinterested sources, not op-eds. You’re in college now (I’m assuming), so learn what a credible source is. A poorly written piece from “Mail Online” that just regurgitates cherry-picked lines from the BBC is obviously not credible. kthxbye
Todd
(02/19/10 9:22am)Report
Hey,
Sorry, but the “oops” of the weak that is the CRU/IPCC house of cards is crumbling fast. It’s obvious you didn’t even read the link I posted. Jones is a pretty credible source about his own misdeeds, wouldn’t you say? kthxbye
Cantafiazia
(02/26/10 4:24pm)Report
does the whole globe have to freeze over before people stop talking about man made global warming?
what a hoax.