[Forida Governor] Scott told reporters who asked about his views on climate change that he had “not been convinced,” and that he would need “something more convincing than what I’ve read.”
via In Florida, officials ban term climate change | Miami Herald Miami Herald.
You mean , like, SCIENCE? That’s what you need to read. I am amazed at the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the vast agreement and volume of material that has been produced WORLDWIDE by thousands of climate scientists. I was watching VICE last night, exploring the ice loss in the Arctics and Greenland. They were talking to scores of scientists who were ON LOCATION, with amazing instrumentation, recording measurements with those amazing devices, and adding it to their research. These SCIENTISTS are the ones using the equipment, taking measurements, writing papers, peer-reviewing them, re-working some conclusions as new evidence comes in and is suggested by those “peers” across the world. It is THESE studies that ARE the real science. Not the totally unsubstantiated , sideline, NON-measured denials of those who stand on the sidelines, with NONE of that equipment and NONE of that worldwide collaboration. And yet we have a mainstream media in this country, and “leaders” of states, who simply deny it all, and just insist that it “can’t be true”, regardless of the only truly objective measures we have, and despite the very clear agreement of various climate scientists worldwide that, based on all these findings, the verdict is dire and well past the point where stern warnings are warranted.
These denier/obscufating arguments love to cherry pick from various “findings” (which are usually bits of data that are being debated as to their usefulness as indicators, and often NOT part of the conclusions which are included in the consensus view. These “cherry pickings” are then advanced as “evidence” that the “science is unsettled”. It is totally bogus science , and scientists KNOW THIS. All they can do is point this out and just move on to their real work. I feel it is up to our media to treat the American Public as somewhat capable of understanding how this works, but they do not.
Paul Gilding has about the best summary of how the consensus view is constructed in climate science:
The complexity of the global ecosystem requires many disciplines to be considered together. Any one individual who claims to understand it all in full detail, including a number of prominent skeptics , clearly doesn’t and should be treated with caution.
For this reason, the science already has a process embedded in it to deal with the challenge of cross-discipline issues and the inherent uncertainty they involve. This is important because we use scientific conclusions to guide everything from approval for medical processes and drugs to the design of bridges and the safety of airplanes. What happens is that scientists come together and intellectually fight it out to reach what they call “consensus positions”. Scientific bodies, either within discipline or across a number of disciplines as appropriate to the task, analyze an area of debate, rigorously peer-review the data, argue out the uncertainties, and come to a considered, collective view based on the balance of evidence. The process also plays itself out in the peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and academic discussions, allowing a common view to emerge over time. This is what is meant by the term consensus. It is inappropriately named because it implies 100 percent agreement, which it isnt, but it does represent the considered integrated view of qualified scientific experts.
It is a good example of where the collective mind is greater than the individual one. What these consensus views effectively say is ‘We have considered all the debate and the uncertainties, and we acknowledge them. We know what we know, but we also know where the uncertainties lie. Therefore the considered view of the experts in the world on this topic is XYZ, and we have an ABC percent level of certainty in that view. – from The Great Disruption, p.32
And yet the public is repeatedly encouraged by our media to “observe the ‘disagreement'” and therefore, the implication goes, the “unsettled science”. This must drive these real scientists crazy.