Once upon a time, people were convinced the world was flat and sailors who didn't return from a voyage might of sailed off the edge of the earth. It took years before enough scientists could convince the masses of the truth.
People, by nature, are resistant to new ideas or scientifically-derived explanations of reality especially if this novel concept is linked somehow to other aspects of their personal belief systems. Many Christians don't believe in evolution, for example, although there is a gigantic body of scientific evidence that supports it. Other religious fundamentalists don't believe in modern medicine, but believe only in the power of prayer.
I believe in science. I also hunt, fish, believe in personal responsibility and my right to bear arms. However, I also believe in an open mind and to see things for what they are. For almost 18 years I made my living assessing human health risk from exposure to chemical contaminants. I have read hundereds of toxicological studies about the effects of chemical exposure on living organisms (primarily rats) and have learned to respect science. If you remember, the pesticide DDT was once considered safe. It took years of research and evidence for the government to ban the sale of DDT in the USA and in the meantime our nations treasured Bald Eagle was almost eliminated because DDT causes egg-shell thinning and the eggs would break before they would hatch (many scientific studies proved this, although there was a smaller group of others that refuted it). Well, the Bald Eagle is back... because enough scientists conducted enough studies and the lawmakers finally acted.
At this point in the argument, even the oil companies are accepting argument that global warming is real http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...g_is_shifting/. And despite GeoFisher's claims, the consensus (which is a majority) among scientists involved in climate research is that global warming is real. Very real.
Here's a sample (the links won't work, but if you can check it all out on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
Scientific consensus
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."
US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."
American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."
Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”
International Union for Quaternary Research: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Australian Coral Reef Society: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases....There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....
I just hope we haven't lost our chance to do something meaningful to prevent the potential long-term effects. The intense storms are just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
Here's a video for those with a mind open enough to watch it:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2005/...c-ice-cap.html
Tight lines,
JWP
Reply With Quote