Skip to main content

There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Comments

Global warming is a divisive issue for many Americans, but according to another study it isn't divisive for scientists. Researchers have concluded a study of the studies, aggregating and evaluating over 12,000 scientific papers on the topic. Their finding is that there appears to be a strong consensus supporting the notion that climate change happening. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 20 Comments

  1. Andrew P.
    1 year ago

    Despite all the advances made with satellites, networks of weather stations and supercomputers over the last century, we still can't predict the weather with any degree of certainty beyond three to five days any more than an astute farmer could 150 years ago just by looking at the sky.

    If anyone approaches you claiming there is anthropogenic global warming/cooling/climate change, turn and run the other way — quickly: It's clear evidence that they are a fraud.

  2. Dirk van Dijk
    1 year ago

    Bad math does not make for good science. As I used to (interminably) say to my chemistry students "Check your figures". More precisely, in your case, if you came up with these figures through the process stated, then you might want to re-think how you came up with that figure - and correct that thinking. If you're just reporting somebody else's figures, you might want to question them, because if they came to that conclusion through the process you describe, it's erroneous.

    Also, you might consider citing sources. The vast majority of scientists (and most journalists) do.

  3. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    Mr. Connolly:

    When/if you interview John Cook, pls ask:
    What academic expertise he has in science?
    What is responsible for NO GLOBAL WARMING for the last 15 years (according to the UK Met Office)?
    How much (%) of the Earth's IR spectrum is absorbed by CO2?
    How much of the Earth's IR spectrum is absorbed by H2O?
    Whether the ocean is acidic or basic? and the pH value?
    Whether the heating effect of a GHG is linear or logarithmic?
    Whether he receives an income for his website efforts?
    How much (ppm) CO2 was in the atmosphere in the age of the dinosaurs (say, 75 million years ago)?

    Thank you.

  4. Philip Cohen
    1 year ago

    If scientific consensus determined real world reality, then the world would still be flat, the earth would still revolve around the sun, we would still use bleeding to cure people, etc, etc

    Mr Connelly it seems to me is the one confusing consensus with fact. Is there climate change? Yes, but there has been climate change since the beginning---it is cyclical, the earth heats up & cools down repeatedly. Does man effect the climate? Yes, but then everything by definition effects the climate from sun spots to the earth tilt of its axis to volcanoes to man. The last volcano to darken the skies was way back in 2010, did you forget that? Or, perhaps, you forgot the prediction of a new ice age in the 1970's -- it was on the cover of Time Magazine. The scientific consensus back then was that a new ice age was coming and that North America would again be covered in ice. That was inevitable according to the consensus of the day.

    In the 1960's the scientific consensus as denoted in the book, The Population Explosion was that by the 1990's the earth would face massive starvation due to over population once the earth reached the unsustainable popular of a billion or so. Oops, China is about 1 billion & so is India. Do we have starvation? Yes, but that is attributable to wars and poor 3rd world countries more that to population per se.

    I could go on, but I think my position is fairly obvious.

  5. Ray Sullivan
    1 year ago

    These Democrat scientists NEVER mention underwater volcanoes in the Pacific Rim heating up the ocean. They never mention an increased tilt in the earth's axis (remember the Indian Ocean tsunami that caused the earth to wobble on its axis?). They never mention increased solar activity causing variations in earth's weather. They never mention changes in aphelion and perihelion as maybe being responsible for increased climate activity. No, they all bow down to Al Gore and the leftists with a predetermined conclusion (WE NEED POPULATION CONTROL) to fit their political agenda - The worship of mother earth...

    May God have mercy on their souls...

  6. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    Marshall
    you might want to read up on Mr. Cook's work in climate science, before you consider an interview. Compared to Dr. Spencer, Mr. Cook is hardly one to hold up as as "knowledgeable. You might go to these two sites & note particularly the comments.


    Andy Revkin
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/the-other-climate-science-gap/

    and Anthony Watts (meteorologist)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/friday-funny-great-moments-in-97-beliefs/

    on Mr. Cook

  7. Peter Anderson
    1 year ago

    "Science largely depends on peer review and consensus to draw conclusions."
    Incorrect, observational studies and careful experiment are the foundation of Science in its formulation of theory and hypothesis.

    "Scientific consensus is different. It's expert conclusion based on the scientific method, and is peer reviewed. It may not be very popular on the street."
    Scientific consensus has nothing to do with actual Science, but is often used in regard to 'climate' as a convenient activity to substitute for Science's endeavors. The 'scientific method' has naught to do with consensus or 'peer review' when what you speak of is opinions!

    It is then factual to note that the supposed 'scientific' consensus is little different to a 'street' consensus...the elitists of 'climate' trying to segregate themselves 'intellectually' whilst behaving in that manner they try to despise!

    "It's like this: If 9 out of 10 doctors..."
    Again then is seen pointless effort to present fractured analogy...there never was a '97%', its not 'too high' it’s a statistic invented of a non-existent situation!

    Climate changes, such change is not linked observably, to CO2 which is itself not carbon an emission of carbon. Note also that experts are not so by education but are generally declared to have expertise.
    There is NO evidence that 'we have a problem' even if you'd like to declare such. None. The great issue of the 'warmist' is to present a belief in calamity by CO2 that has never been otherwise observed.

    "The overwhelming majority of scientists say we're warming the planet. ..."
    Less than 100 from several thousands in a poll conducted some time previously opinioned there is 'a problem' still presents only an opinion, and then an opinion without foundation in reality! I'm not saying we should not debate, but I am saying we need evidence of a direct, observational style (not involving of opinions of 'models' behaviors) to make progress on the discussion of this planet's actual climate.

    Some opinions of interest can include also: "An inconvenient truth: The CO2 scare"
    (http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4024980-74/levels-ppm-climate#axzz2TZnCpko0)

    "As atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels verge on 400 parts per million (ppm), climate cluckers are aflutter over what Chicken-Little-in-chief Al Gore has called “A sad milestone. A call to action.” But this alarm is as baseless as any sounded by the blame-mankind crowd."

    "Tornado activity hits 60-year low"
    (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/05/09/quiet-tornado-season/2148075/)

    The sea ice still refuses to cooperate with the 'warmist' platform (http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/), the South Pacific Islands refuse to 'sink' (http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/data/monthly.shtml#table) and temperatures just will not rise with CO2 in any convenient manner at all as that ~30 year period at the end of the 20Cth was itself the coincidence and not 'the norm'. There is neither valid process or then ability for CO2 to 'drive' either temperature or 'climate', there never was.

  8. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Marshall: "However, the evidence is clear that we have a problem. Once we accept that reality, then we can..."

    The evidence is not at all clear and writing lies about is not going to make it any clearer. The only real problem we have is that there are far too many people like you who, for reasons of politics or personal gain, keep publishing blatant falsehoods about some supposed, yet unobservable "problem" for which you cannot even suggest any possible solutions. This is a "problem" that exhibits no symptoms, harms absolutely no one and one that cannot be reliably measured.

    I cannot accept what you keep calling "reality" because your "reality" makes zero sense and is not based on reliable, measurable evidence, which means it is mostly fantasy. Once you accept that is the true reality, then maybe you will stop dispensing all the fertilizer you've been writing on this topic, and turn to researching and publishing facts about it instead of gibberish.

  9. Marshall Connolly
    1 year ago

    I am scheduling an interview with John Cook, the head of Skeptical Science who was behind the consensus study. He manages the website skpeticalscience.com.

    Let me ask all of you, what questions would you like him to answer?

    I'll harvest them over the weekend and add some of yours to my list.

  10. J. Bob
    1 year ago

    Marshall,
    with all due respect, it would appear that most US scientists may also be out of touch, reading you caption. Here is a comment on that so called "consensus", based on an analysis of this "survey" you refer to, by Larry Bell, at Forbes.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

    Looking at the AGU survey, over 10K surveys were sent out. Of those 3136 responded. Of the 3146, 77were classified as "climate" scientists. Of those who made the "final cut", one would have to wonder how many are living off the "man causing global warming" bit.. And the only way to save the planet is giving out more grant $'s.

    Even the Climategate e-mails revealed attempts by established "climate" scientists to keep papers, not in accord with the consensus, from being published.

    Unfortunately, it becomes quite clear, that many of these articles, presented here, show a complete lack of scientific procedures, & can only be described as opinion based opinions. A far cry from science, a field I have personally spent 50+ years. Many in areas, which are now called "climate" sciences. .


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Revelation 15:1-4
And I saw in heaven another sign, great and wonderful: seven ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 98:1, 2-3, 7-8, 9
[Psalm] Sing a new song to Yahweh, for he has performed ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 21:12-19
'But before all this happens, you will be seized and ... Read More

Saint of the Day

November 26 Saint of the Day

St. John Berchmans
November 26: Eldest son of a shoemaker, John was born at Diest, Brabant. ... Read More