[Vision2020] "Science" Journal: Evidence For Consensus Re: Global

[pkraut at moscow.com]

And those who opposed this paper or disagreed are just idiots who do not 
know real science?? You are proving my point for me!


> BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
> The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change*Naomi Oreskes*
> *<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#affiliation>
> 
> *P*olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, 
frequently
> assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as 
an
> argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
> administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
> review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on 
climate
> change" ( 1 
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref1>).
> Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls 
on
> carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the
> science ( 2 
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref2>).
> Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in 
the
> scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. 
This
> is not the case.
> 
> The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
> World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
> Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as 
a
> basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
> and published scientific literature (
> 3<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref3>).
> In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the 
consensus
> of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human
> activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of
> atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ...
> [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have 
been
> due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in
> (4<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref4>)].
> 
> 
> IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major 
scientific
> bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on 
the
> matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy 
of
> Sciences report, *Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key 
Questions*,
> begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a 
result
> of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface 
ocean
> temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (
> 5<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5>)].
> The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary 
of
> professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
> that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
> been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
> reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" 
[p.
> 3 in ( 5 
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5>)].
> 
> Others agree. The American Meteorological Society
> (6<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6>),
> the American Geophysical Union (
> 7<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7>),
> and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all 
have
> issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human
> modification of climate is compelling (
> 8<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8>).
> 
> 
> The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities 
for
> comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
> diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. 
Nevertheless,
> they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
> tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific 
journals
> between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
> "climate change" (
> 9<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9>).
> 
> 
> The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of 
the
> consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
> paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all 
the
> papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
> implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
> paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
> Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
> 
> Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
> paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is 
natural.
> However, none of these papers argued that point.
> 
> This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
> literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the 
public
> statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists,
> journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, 
disagreement,
> or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
> 
> The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
> science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
> failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely 
blame
> us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
> change and failed to do anything about it.
> 
> Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and 
there
> are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
> understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
> change is also still open. But there is **a scientific consensus on the
> reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have 
repeatedly
> tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
> 
> *References and Notes*
> 
>    1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, *New York Times*, 19 June 2003, A1.
>    2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, *Climate
>    Policy **2* (1), 3 (2003).
>    3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
>    4. J. J. McCarthy *et al.*, Eds., *Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
>    Adaptation, and Vulnerability* (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
>    2001).
>    5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
>    Change, *Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key
> Questions*(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
>    6. American Meteorological Society, *Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. **84*,
>    508 (2003).
>    7. American Geophysical Union, *Eos **84 *(51), 574 (2003).
>    8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
>    9. The first year for which the database consistently published
>    abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis 
because,
>    although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the 
paper
>    was not about climate change.
>    10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial
>    Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," 
presented
>    at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the
>    History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to 
my
>    research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. 
Belitz, J. R.
>    Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful
>    discussions.
> 
> ----------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> 




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/