Laurence I. Gould asks:
“What is a
scientific consensus on
dangerous global warming”?
14th January 2008
Welcome Visitor;
For years there is a debate on what is the role of “consensus” in
scientific methodology and discovery? Is the work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientifically
reliable? In a recently published Editorial, Laurence I. Gould from the
Physics Department,
University of Hartford, asked:
“What
is meant by the claim that a “consensus” of scientists agree/disagree
that humans are responsible for dangerous global warming? How do we
know that there is a “consensus”? Are the “scientists” climatologists
who have studied the issue? How can you tell whether there are any
biases in their beliefs about whether there is/is not such warming?”
The immediate problem is not the word “consensus”, but the absence of a
definition on “dangerous global warming”. The UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) has none: Instead Article 1 (1)
defines:
"Adverse effects of climate change" means changes in the physical
environment or biota resulting from climate change, which have
significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or
productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of
socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare. While one may
define global warming as:
“Gradual increase in the earth's surface temperature”; any ‘deleterious
effects’ is not per se ‘dangerous’, nor is a warming necessarily
effecting the ecosystems deleteriously, at least not all.
In addition to the absence
of a term on ‘global warming’ the text of Article 1 (1) is based on the
term ‘climate change’. On the question what is climate, the UNFCCC is
silent, and defines ‘climate change’ in this way:
“Climate change” means a
change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which
is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable
time periods”.
It
is obvious that the definition is a complete flop, without having a
definition of the term CLIMATE in the first place. As long as the
matter of ‘consensus’ is not clearly stated any claim having reached
consensus is flawed. This aspect is missing in Laurence
I. Gould’s recent essay. Recommended for further reading: http://www.whatisclimate.com
With
Regards
Oceanclimate-Team