What does consensus look like?

24 07 2013
Another guest post by Mark Cochrane

If there was serious scientific debate about climate change by those who actually do scientific work on the subject there would be a substantial and growing body of scientific research reflecting these doubts and contrary evidence. What does reality show by actually examining the research?

It is also apparent that the more anyone actually knows about the subject the more convinced they are of the issue. These people actually read the scientific literature while others rely on unsubstantiated opinions designed the create the appearance of debate where there is none.

And how about all of the world’s scientific societies?

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus (source)

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academie des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

  • African Academy of Sciences
  • Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  • Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  • Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
  • Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  • l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  • Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  • Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
  • Zambia Academy of Sciences
  • Sudan Academy of Sciences

Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Mark

 

Advertisements

Actions

Information

8 responses

25 07 2013
len gardener

oh! sorry my post was deleted.

oh! well maybe this view of consensus can also fit, military reporting to a base, it is peer reviewed, everyone is in agreement, same with churches pear reviewed, science can’t own peer review and consensus, the general consensus here is people may dislike me and others similar? why but?

like the rest of you we simply put our point of view across.

take care

len

25 07 2013
mikestasse

No Len, your posts are MODERATED….. in an attempt to slow the crap you write, like this (so you know what’s going on…)

Since WHEN is the church peer reviewed? Do you even KNOW or understand what peer review means? Are you aware that ‘the church’ burned people at the stake because they refused to believe the Earth was flat..??

You’re entitled to your “point of view”, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

26 07 2013
Don

Mike, its good to get views like Len’s. The way the world is going to hell is so sad and we need a laugh occasionally.

26 07 2013
len gardener

thanks don,

mike take his life too seriously, he should relax a bit like I do, while others laugh at me they are leaving someone else, any we need mixed views so maybe if it goes the way I reckon, others can’t say “I didn’t tell them”

my point of view are my facts, they have their theoretical facts I have mine based on sense and sensibility.

come on mike relax life is short and need not go to your hell. while we bicker about science worship people perish in religious civil wars, floods typhoons, earthquakes you name, none of it is slowing down.

can you imagine those people in the largely strife torn mid-east, kids go to school and may not come home, they may come to a no home or parents, and over here some worship the ego of men. good belly laugh in that hey lol

len

26 07 2013
mikestasse

Len, I couldn’t be more relaxed if I tried……….. and points of view are NOT facts.

26 07 2013
len gardener

you said they were facts mike,

just as factual as the science myth.

len

26 07 2013
mikestasse

There’s no such thing as a science myth. Only theories under further investigation, but of course you do not understand the scientific process…. in science virtually nothing is ‘proven’ (except maybe in chemistry…) and everything is continually challenged.

27 07 2013
len gardener

why do people then believe in it if it is unproven and continually tested?

gravity must right things fall to the ground it needs no proving as such, river flow downhill no need to reprove that.

but this science climate myth which is about to cost us dearly remains unproven.

science was first lorded about 760 years ago with Socrates, who was nothing more than a thinker, like all the sages and sears of his time, dreamer, dream reader, stone readers. all part of mythology.

len

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s