moonbattery.gif


« Neurotics Target Wi-Fi | Main | Gary Sheffield Discovers Racist Conspiracy »


June 3, 2007

"Consensus" Lie Debunked

Possibly the most idiotic argument spewed by global warming dupes is that there is a consensus among scientists that the Goracle's hysterical ravings are accurate — not only because scientific truth is not determined by what "everybody" thinks, but because no such consensus exists.

In 1992, when a Gallup poll showed that only 17% of scientists thought global warming had begun, Gore was already bellowing this now familiar lie:

Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.

Due to natural climate fluctuation, to political and economic rewards for compliance, and to the threat of a ruined career hanging over those who won't conform, it's now a lot easier to find scientists willing to drink the Kool-Aid. But once you step out of the MSM echo chamber, it's also easy to find scientists who don't believe and aren't willing to pretend they do. A good place to start is Lawrence Solomon's National Post Deniers Series:

It's said that in politics, perception is reality — and by dominating the media, liberals are often able to control perception. This seems to have given them the impression they have God-like powers to alter reality by decree. But yelling that everyone buys into the global warming hoax hardly makes it true.

al-gore-speech.gif
Al Gore, would-be Master of Reality (via The Reference Frame).

On a tip from Bergbirk.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 3, 2007 5:17 PM

Comments

Love the "lava retch" spewing from Mt. Goron.
How 'bout a bolt of lightning ripping forth from his lordship's heinie hole? (or is that flying monkeys?)

Posted by: fellowes at June 3, 2007 7:04 PM

lol, yea! great pic :-)

Posted by: MoleOnABull at June 3, 2007 8:09 PM

When the Global Warming Cult says "Consensus," they mean "Dogma." When they say "Denies," they mean "Heretics."

Posted by: V the K at June 4, 2007 5:29 AM

Great article. Thanks.

Posted by: Kevin at June 4, 2007 9:30 AM

It's interesting to examine the logical fallacies behind these arguments. "A consensus of thousands" is an example of Argumentum ad populum. Science is not a democracy. Scientists don't get to vote on the truth of natural law. Being repetitive, insistent or belligerent doesn't prove the point either. That's "appeal to force" (Argumentum ad baculum). "If people (x) don't accept global warming (P) as true, then global disaster (Q) will ensue. Global disaster is a punishment on people. Therefore global warming is true." Maybe the best example of logical fallacy is ad nauseam - making the same argument until you're sick of hearing it.

Great pic of the Goremonger.

Posted by: the paperboy at June 4, 2007 4:57 PM

There are a couple of ways you can approach the global warming debate. You could have a scientist roll call to see which side looks the most impressive. On the one hand, you have a scattering of scientists as presented in the National Post series. On the other side, you have the IPCC saying man causes global warming. Or if the IPCC is not your cup of tea, there's always the Academies of Science from 19 countries endorsing the IPCC's position both here and here. Or NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research and American Meteorological Society.

However, roll calls don't really interest me. It's more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their theories but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Personally, I like to examine each argument on a case by case basis. Here's the arguments used in the National Post series that try to explain global warming without CO2:

Part 1: "The hockey stick was debunked due to statistical errors." Since the initial hockey stick study by Mann and its subsequent "debunking", there's been around a dozen proxy studies, analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. The results all confirm the same general conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. This is even confirmed by Stephen McIntyre, one of the original hockey stick debunkers.

Part 6: "Less cosmic rays => less clouds => global warming." The big flaw in the cosmic ray theory is cosmic radiation has shown no trend over the last 50 years. So even if cosmic rays are linked to cloud formation, all they'll find is the cloud formation 50 years ago is the same as it is now and has little to no impact on global warming today.

Part 9: Mars is warming. The whole theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider solar output hasn't risen over the last few decades of global warming according to direct satellite measurements that found solar output has shown no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1940 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years. So what's causing warming on Mars? The planet has had massive darkening storms over the last 30 years that reduce the planet's albedo (reflectivity) which warms the planet.

Part 10 rehashes Part 6 and 9, blaming the sun and cosmic rays. Again, solar activity and cosmic radiation have shown no long term trend over the same period global warming has been greatest. If there is a "smoking gun" in global warming, solar variations sure ain't it.

Posted by: JC at June 4, 2007 10:56 PM

50 years ago there was a "consensus" that the theory of plate tectonics was bunk.

I guess reality has since changed, since the consensus has now switched sides?

The point is that folks like JC can spout all they want about the wonderful scientists who believe (roll call, again). It doesn't change reality. And in the end it won't have any effect on the weather.

It would be interesting to see how the 22nd century scientists view the people of today, and what lessons they'll take from the current hysteria.

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at June 5, 2007 3:02 PM