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

11 - 20 of 20 Comments

  1. Marsh Connoll
    1 year ago

    Too many people are equating scientific consensus with street consensus, which means I wasn't very clear in my article.

    Street consensus, a.k.a. popular opinion is just that. It's is driven by feelings, emotions, and popularity, not scientific data.

    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.

    (An aside to Mike: No scientist has ever advocated the Earth is flat. They did not have science as we know it in the ancient world. I agree that consensus views can be pretty wrong, but read further.)

    It's like this:

    If 9 out of 10 doctors examine you and say you have hypertension, and one doctor says to ignore them and to just take his "dietary supplement" with ginseng root and caffeine instead, what are you going to do? Are you going to take your blood pressure meds or are you going to take the "supplement"?

    That's different than 9 out of 10 people on the campus at UC Berkeley who feel that murdering babies in the womb is somehow okay and therefore people who do it should be exempt from justice.

    No, we shouldn't always follow the group consensus. Christ certainly bucked the consensus didn't He? But Jesus was an expert in his field.

    Likewise, scientists, while they may be awfully far from Jesus, they're not loud-mouthed freshmen either.

    I'm not advocating anything specific. Personally, I have no idea what our advocacy should be. However, the evidence is clear that we have a problem. Once we accept that reality, then we can get to work on what to do about it, if anything. Perhaps we can't do anything anyway? But we can't have that discussion until we accept there is something to talk about in the first place.

    If the 97 percent number seems too high, well, that thought occurred to me too. However, even if it is, which I would put money on, I would also suspect that it's not too far off the mark. The general conclusion is still obvious. The overwhelming majority of scientists say we're warming the planet.

    I'm not saying we should not debate, but I am saying we need to make progress on the discussion.

  2. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    "Science largely depends on peer review and consensus to draw conclusions. "

    Science depends on forming hypotheses that fit the available facts and then running experiments to prove or disprove the hypotheses. It does not depend on peer review or consensus whatsoever. Marshall needs to learn some grade school level science before writing any more of this nonsense.

    "According to researchers, there appears to be virtually no diversion from the scientific consensus..."

    Marshall has had it proven to him time and again on this site that the sentence above is not even approximately close to anything resembling the truth. This entire article is nothing but a pack of lies about some phoney "consensus" that does not exist.

    There's the problem!

  3. Terry deGelder
    1 year ago

    Years of doctored reports and outright lies and still we get articles like this

  4. Helen Hawkins
    1 year ago

    I don't see that disagreement on this subject is a problem at all. In fact I would be worried if "consensus" was the standard by which science followed. We can prove nothing in regard to the climate.

    We have no idea what causes warming periods and cold periods. They have come and gone for billions of years. It was warm during the time of Christ then it was cold. It was warm when the Vikings settled on Greenland and it got cold again. The climate is up and down and will continue to be so.

  5. Conservative Ecologist
    1 year ago

    Mr. Connolly,

    I guess you rather continue pushing your personal views on climate rather than answer the question I asked you in the comment section of a previous so called article you pushed on us regarding purported climate change.

    How sad. How sad to have reporters, or whatever your title might be, on a Catholic website of all places, continue to push on us, the readers, the now all too common pseudo science, which is in reality the cult or religion du jour of our unthinking masses, of so called anthropomorphic induced climate change.

    Please get it in you head Mr. Connolly that neither generalized consensus nor studies galore constitute science. Please refer to one of the comments I have provided on one of your previous writings regarding what science actually is. And, by the way, REAL SCIENCE can not be changed or redefined by consensus either.

    But let me once again try to educate you.

    Science is NOT based on consensus, but on FACTS. Just as, in the time of Galileo, there used to be complete and generalized consensus that the universe revolved around the Earth, in the end, REAL science proved that cosmological model wrong!

    Please stick to the facts, and not to the consensus.

    And let me be so bold as to quote a true scientist here, as a way to reinforce what I have written.

    Benjamin Franklin once wrote (and I am paraphrasing here) that right is right even if nobody is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it.

    Even if many so called scientists believe in man induced climate change, that does not constitute science.

    Get it?

  6. Mike
    1 year ago

    Oh well, if there's consensus...we should just stop doing any more research on this. We should just make billionaires out of those who will sell us our "carbon credits". I like this line from the article "study done by historian Naomi Oreskes reviewed nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies from the previous decade in which the phrase "global climate change" appeared in the title". First of all, a historian looking at scientific studies? What are her qualifications to interpret scientific data? Did she consider the fact the people who allow or disallow papers to be "peer-reviewed" may not even allow dissenting papers into the process? There are countless sources you can find that dissent from the climate change drivel. Whoever writes these articles needs to take the elitist leftist communist (green is the new red) blinders off. What affect would all of the proposed changes have on the environment? Practically none! Wake up. This whole green movement is about shifting money from countries that have it to countries that don't - better known as redistribution of wealth. Yes. Man has an impact on the environment, but there's not a scientist alive who will say that it's hotter now than it ever has been. Explain also how that's necessarily a bad thing. Areas of the world that cannot grow food for the planet move into the zone where they can supply resources. Does the planet look like it did 10 million years ago? The people who inhabited the land between France and England were probably not too happy about rising sea levels that forced them out, but they dealt with it. Give me a break and actually explore your own biases.
    Regarding consensus, what was the consensus for first 1400 years of the first millennium CE about the shape of the earth and the earth's primacy in the solar system? Consensus is NOT by default the correct position.
    Since this is a Catholic site, we are called to be good stewards of our environment, but going along with the consensus is how we ended up with abortion! As Catholics, we must each do our part, but we must not support an evil (redistribution through carbon credits or anything of the like) in order to pursue a good. I'm tired of these articles on here.

  7. RobertB_MN
    1 year ago

    "In aggregate, 97.2 percent endorsed the consensus view that anthropogenic global warming is real and 2.8 percent rejected it."

    That the number is so high should make one suspicious (you'll never get 97% of scientists or engineers to agree about *anything*) I suspect all we are seeing is the results of self-selection bias. Maybe there's global warming and maybe there isn't, but the consensus itself is meaningless.

  8. George Ronald Adkisson
    1 year ago

    "de Waal Straat" which later became Wall Street has something to do with all the sleepwalking in the uS...along with it's treasury's coin.
    We naturally put up a different type found in the cranium...and surround ourselves with unobjectionable people.People that do not need guns...or put you in debt and subject you with their wealth.People that envisioned a clean environment and not all the unethical testing and deaths that eventually happened from the tests.
    The uS Congress will never be able to turn around and hold themselves responsible for their own actions.They'll say, if anyone can get away with it, then it must be ok...and expect you could not beat them in the court.
    The Bible will never be mentioned in the court.
    It's easy them to say, that living like God wants us to, is called luck.

  9. Rush Glick
    1 year ago

    When I see statistics that tell us that "97.2%" of scientists believe in human-caused global warming, I become suspiciuos. Such landslides, like the Soviet elections of the past, shout propaganda. If it is true that only 1.8% are not in agreement, then they make for a very loud contingent. Oh, and of course, the United States is the bad guy, again, putting out all that nasty Co2. Be sure not to breath out, anyone! How did the earth ever emerge from past ice ages without America's pollution being the cause...or the blame?

  10. Phillip Noe
    1 year ago

    Contact your policy makers and insist they work to reduce global emissions. Our future generations will suffer needlessly if we continue with business-as-usual.

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

Saint of the Day

March 26 Saint of the Day

St. Margaret Clitherow
March 26: St. Margaret Clitherow was born in Middleton, England, in 1555, ... Read More