Global Warming Skepticism Reason 2: What Scientific Consensus?

Many authors question the commonly expressed view that scientists are in general agreement on the issue of global warming (or global climate change), its causes, and what should be done about it. Let's examine this question objectively.

One of the major sources of this statement on consensus is the meeting of scientists and other representatives of nations known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to their website, the IPCC is:

"a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)"

It states the following purpose:

"Climate change is a very complex issue: policymakers need an objective source of information about the causes of climate change, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences and the adaptation and mitigation options to respond to it. This is why WMO and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988... The main activity of the IPCC is to provide in regular intervals Assessment Reports of the state of knowledge on climate change."

Hundreds of scientists from around the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers on scientific studies. They have been doing this for over ten years now. An examination of their web site reveals that they have a very deliberative process for reviewing and cross-checking their information before generating their biannual "assessment reports." In any body of scientists this large and diverse you would expect some disagreement on individual parts of their reports, but I believe that the great majority of them do agree on the major conclusions and this can certainly be considered a consensus.

Some skeptics find a scientist or two who has disagreed with some of these "consensus" conclusions, and quote them to support their belief that there is no consensus. I happen to be a scientist myself (though not a climate scientist), and I can tell you that we scientists are a very skeptical bunch and question each other's conclusions all the time! In fact, that healthy skepticism and questioning process is an important part of improving scientific knowledge. Questioning and disagreement on some individual points by a few scientifically-credentialed individuals should not be seen as grounds for dismissing conclusions that are generally accepted by the vast body of scientists trained in that discipline. Scientific progress is based on the open sharing of results and subjecting them to the scrutiny of your peers - that is to say, others trained in the same field. What I see is a lot of is skeptics quoting people who may have some kind of degree in some science, but they are not trained in a related field and have never worked with that kind of research. It is kind of like saying you don't want to have your ruptured appendix removed on your doctor's advice - because your dentist disagrees with something he said!

As I mentioned I am a scientist myself, but not being an expert in climate modeling I do not feel qualified to question my colleagues who are expert in that field. I see them overwhelmingly come to the same major conclusions on this topic, that (1) the planet is warming up on average; (2) this warming is caused predominantly by human activities, and (3) if we continue increasing those activities on the path we are now on, there will be significant consequences to our environment within a lifetime. The specifics of exactly how many degrees it will warm in how many years may differ among the various predictions made but they all show the same general pattern. So are those minor differences a reason to dismiss the whole concept? I think not. There is indeed a consensus among those who should know.

My next "skeptics" article will focus on the question of whether global climate change is "only a theory" and what does that really mean anyway?