The Paradox of Consensus – a novel argument on climate change

So...  An ex-management consultant who is trying to break into Republican politics came to this conclusion with his brother:

In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for global warming. 

That doesn't sound like sound reasoning.  It sounds like red meat for potential voters.

It's not like there is a cabal of scientists out there looking for experiments they can run to prove a point.  There are climate scientists who run independent experiments and they keep coming up with similar results.  They aren't out to prove climate change.  They are out to study the climate and climate change is what is being discovered.

But the part I find confusing is you state man made global temperature increase as being the consensus, yet almost every test I've seen to prove that theory seems to fail.  For example CO2 levels have drastically increased over the last 14 years (the man made part) yet temperatures have either stayed flat or decreased.  To me (a non scientist) it seems more like they're trying to find better models to make the hypothesis true versus recognize what all the models are really telling them.

I'm not sure if it's the scientific community or the political crowd that's pushing the new "climate change" verbiage because they are slowly recognizing that the earth isn't warming and that it's now man that's causing the "cooling".

Sure it is possible.  Maybe it would be better stated to say I trust the scientific data more than I trust the scientists.  Climategate is a great example of this, where scientists were allegedly manipulating scientific data to fit their purpose. 

So, with AGW the Theory was that the earth was warming due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions.  CO2 emissions were going to increase over the next couple decades so therefore the hypothesis was that the earth's temperature would follow suit (to some degree).  Yet, the scientific data seems to do nothing but disprove this theory, yet the "scientists" continue to speak as though it's settled science because it's a consensus.  I know I'm over simplifying it, but how is this good science?

I am not a climate scientist, but.... I seem to remember that 1998 was an outlier year -- it was an El Nino year -- and you may remember the massive heat waves in Europe that killed tens of thousands of people.   

Saying that "temperatures have stayed flat since 1998" strikes me as the equivalent of saying "Obama cut the deficit in half" -- both statements are only true if you rely on an outlier as the base year.

He didn't cut the deficit?  just kidding

I can only go by what I read, because I'm not a scientist either:

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions 

Also, don't forget about the massive cold spells that have killed tens of thousands of people too.
Not related to the AGW debate, but there's an interesting study on people dieing in cold versus heat.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/winter-kills-excess-deaths-winter-months

I would bet that is a cherry-picked statement from James Hanson.  NASA's GISS had a press release in January titled "NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long Term Climate-Warming Trend".  Going back to 1880, 9 of the 10 warmest years have been in the 2000's.  The 10th year was 1998.  

"One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. "What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it's warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html

lol, ok that made me laugh.

I genuinely try to be skeptical of data on both sides of this issue, but it's really hard.  There are a lot of straight up propaganda outlets on both sides of the issue pumping stuff out.

That's why I can't trust Pitt. He's a Steelers fan.

+1.

Again, let's also remember that world avgs are only part of the picture.  Temperature volatility and certain areas being warmer than others--Arctic ice melt, for example--are important indicators of AGW.

No, the correct analogy would be “I trust physics, but I don’t trust civil engineers”.  I believe the science he is referring to is the scientific method.  That’s not the same thing as the results of studies by “scientists”.

Ha - thanks for that.  I needed something to smile about this morning. 

Could you help us all out and check in to where those places get there funding?  I'm not sure and I think it could help to clarify the issue.

I know I probably come across as a anti GW nut job, but I'm really not.  I just tend to take a skeptical view on most things, and even more so when the government is involved and want me to pay more money.

As a non scientist, I read an article like what I linked in earlier in the economist and it has this diagram:

According to the scientist's quoted in the article if temperatures stay flat for the next couple years the actual data falls out of bounds for pretty much every climate prediction model that assumes the man made component of GW.  If, and I know this is an if, the temperatures do stay flat or go down the next couple years and the data falls out of all the models, what happens then form a science standpoint?

Also looking at the recent IPCC AR5 draft the actual data has already fallen out of every AGW model range and this year doesn't seem to be shaping up to help.

I know people like to say consensus is fact, but from a science standpoint it's just the most logical conclusion based on the facts at hand if I understand it correctly.  It was scientific consensus at one point that the universe was static, the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.  Obviously the consensus has changed since then, so consensus isn't fact.

As mentioned, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff, but the more I try to read both sides the more skeptical I become.

So, I have a question.  The earth has obviously warmed and cooled pretty much since it was formed.  Is there no scientific possibility being considered that the warming trend the last century could be natural?  I know the hypothesis/consensus is that it's related to man, but what caused all the other warming and cooling throughout history then?

Also, if the data continues to fall out of all the climate change models then at what point does the consensus stop being the consensus?

You should read State of Fear By Micheal Crichton.  Like all of his books, it's a work of fiction, based on valid science.

Isn't that what we should all be debating?  I know NASA says so but then, they're measuring the effects not the cause.

I think every climate scientist would agree the world is warming, no doubt in my mind that is measurable and cannot be argued. 

the point of this article I took was: "We should investigate more thoroughly why the world warming" Everyone thinks the major contributing factor is man made, but, recent measurements do tend to fall outside or on the fringe of any models or theories put forth to support the man made argument.  The lack of severely accelerated  change in the decade that has produced more pollution than any other does make one think that we should be taking a more investigative approach.

For the record, I do believe we are a  contributing factor, and I do believe there are a lot of things we should be doing, but when it comes to the debate, I actually do think we ought to be seeing more investigation in to cause.

James Harden and GISS have consistently held the position that global warming is happening, and that it’s a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions.  The article Tony posted quoted Harden implies that he and GISS think temperatures have stopped rising.  The only point I was trying to make was that the quote must have been taken out of context because it drastically contradicts everything Harden has been fighting for since the 80's and every public press release GISS makes on the subject.

Here's the paper he was quoted from:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

The 5 year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

So, he does make a factual statement that the 5 year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade and why they think it's flat.

The rest of the paper is most certainly pro global warming, but the article I posted was simply stating the temperature levels the last 10 years being flat, so I don't think it was used out of context.