The big buzzwords being bandied about with regards to climate change is Scientific Consensus. I understand what this mean, although I don’t think a lot of the global warming alarmists do.

In every article I write about this, I feel the need to explain - so bear with me.

• According to the science available to us today, there is irrefutable evidence the earth has been warming over the past few decades.
• We have assumed carbon dioxide is the most important contributor to global warming.

The first statement is based upon the results of Science. There have been highly accurate measurements of temperature change since 1978 and quite accurate research of the natural record going back a very long time. The earth warms and cools in a somewhat cyclical manner.

The second statement is based upon Scientific Consensus, but only a bastardized form if that. Scientific Consensus is a judgment or opinion, which is based significantly on peer review of other people’s research. Scientific Consensus is supposed to be open for criticism, but it is not now - nor has it been historically. Scientific Consensus is supposed to be perishable, changing over time as new science emerges on a specific topic, but that is not happening in the global warming debate either.

Our ability to understand global warming and whether we should worry should be based upon the results of science. The scientific community should be encouraging researchers to try to prove them wrong. That is the strength of science.

The truth is, proponents of anthropogenic global warming don’t want to hear anything contrary to their long-adopted consensus. It is more important to be important and right, than it is to allow your consensus to be proven incorrect, or even just potentially flawed.

It is interesting to note that the IPCC hailed 900-odd reports which came to exactly the same conclusion - that global warming is human caused. Yet, this same body reportedly ignored another 1100 studies which refuted one or more of the measures, models, or methods used by the IPCC. It is also interesting that many of the IPCC’s own reviewers have been ignored in their criticism of the IPCC information. Additionally, it is interesting how many scientists who are not skeptics at all are ignored when their research contradicts the scientific consensus.

Before I let you go, think about a few other instances in history, where the scientific consensus was different than the research posed by a minority of scientists.

Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions discussed this problem in detail. Several examples of this are present in the relatively recent history of science. For example:

• the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
• the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
• the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
• the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
• the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren however it was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori

There are also examples of new ideas that were shown to be wrong. Two of the classics are N rays and polywater. Although some believers still exist, cold fusion is generally considered to belong to this class. [Source]

So, my point here is we should be frantically accepting all criticism in an effort to disprove it, rather than rejecting all criticism in an effort to ignore it. Why? In order to ensure survival from these predicted cataclysmic results of global warming, we are talking about impacting the entire global society as we know it - unless it is just our survival we care about. Before we attempt to lead the world in an effort so drastic and so forceful, we are obliged to find the truth. Consensus is not truth.

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

Are you interested in the science, or just looking for a reason to rail against the machine?

This is an important question because if you are interested in science the ruling out of carbon dioxide as a culprit in climate change is going to be significant.

There are two pieces of information here that it is important for you to consume, if not believe. In fact, I don’t want you to believe it - research it yourself.

1. Carbon Dioxide - the greenhouse gas bogeyman - is not causing global warming
2. The globe is beginning to cool

I know, I know - this kills everything some people live for. It makes you wonder why people are in Bali right now, discussing how we might all avert this catastrophic global event. It makes Al Gore’s Nobel prize a little something different. But, don’t worry about it too much, they didn’t know any better because the data they are using is not very granular in scope and is a bit dated.

In August of 2007, data emerged showing none of the tell-tale signature of greenhouse gas inducing a global change in temperature. While earlier data allowed many to hold a belief that Greenhouse gases could be the culprit, today the data completely removes greenhouse gases as a source of global warming.

The statement has been made and shown in data - CO2 levels and temperature change rise and fall together, however the data now indicates global warming precedes CO2 level rises, not the other way around. The combination of these most-recent findings is turning many into skeptics about the reasons for global climate change.
Yeah - it’s true. 2006 and 2007 are cooler than 2005. Also, NASA made some errors in its data about global climate trends. And while the overall change is only 1/1000th of a degree since 2000, you might want to look at the overall change in the model.

correction of the mistake means that the temperature record now shows that 1934 was the hottest year since 1880 in the US, not 1998. It also means four of the top ten hottest years in the country were in the 1930s and only three in the last ten years.

That’s only important because the global warming politicians are saying:

The space agency’s temperature data are central to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report released this year. The figures indicate that eight of the ten hottest years worldwide since the mid-1800s have occurred since 1990.

Also, the oceans are doing things, which are not convenient truths.

So, what does this all mean? Is global climate change just a big hoax? No, I don’t think so. I am sure that global climate change is as real as the nose on your face (you do have a nose, right?). However, we have got to remove some of our poorly-made assumptions, along with some of the agendas people have attached to the global warming debate. If you are truly interested in climate change, and not just as a means to further your own agenda, then the science is going to tug you back and forth from believer to skeptic until the scientific community agrees and is then proven right.

Cleaner fuel, cleaner living, more efficient automobiles, less plastic, being stewards of our natural legacy are all important things to discuss and act upon, in my book. But the shrill, hand-wringing over greenhouse gases has got to stop now. There is no longer any scientific evidence to support it. I understand this is like turning an aircraft carrier around - it takes a lot of time and space to do it. I promise to help as much as I can, believe me.

For those who will not accept that the quality of science is going to improve over time and reveal changes to what is accepted as the truth, you are ignoring the history of science as we know it, as well as the very essence of the argument for evolution. You simply cannot ignore credible science and then point to science to prove your case without having an agenda outside of a concern about climate change.

You also have to remember, many of us have already been through one climate change scare in our lifetime. We’re still kind of worried about that one, what with the world in a cooling trend right now and all.