/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1720960

A common argument against scientific consensus is it's merely <span class="math">argumentatum~ad~populum.[/spoiler] This simplistic argument ignores the process in which science is in conducted. Science is a fundamentally self-correcting process, since any errors in a scientists' work will be found out by colleagues and grad students eager to upstage their superiors. Shoddy work is either rejected by the peer review process or torn apart by commenters. The level of consensus achieved on global warming is extremely hard to come by in any field, not just climate science.

Just how strong is this consensus? When the field has had nearly two centuries to mature (Weart 2009), combining corroborating evidence from widely disparate and independent fields (Ibid), of which 97% of active climatologists agree on climate change (Doran & Zimmerman 2009), and zero new research articles disagree with the consensus position (Oreskes 2004), and on top of all that, there's a huge credibility gap between pro-consensus and anti-consensus scientists (Anderegg et al 2010), you can be damned sure that global warming is real and caused by humanity.

Sources:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

>>1631335

OP must be a troll. I mean Jesus, people have pretended to be Ginger Spice, sent in their cards claiming they were "Dr. Geri Halliwell" with a PhD in astrophysics and absolutely zero verification. In fact, that's exactly what happened, and she appeared in the petition three separate times.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

Furthermore, Scientific American phoned up a few dozen of the people on the petition who claimed to have a climatology PhD, of which only half responded. Some of them didn't remember signing the petition, or were mislead into providing their signature.

Source: sidebar in the article "Climate of Uncertainty" in the October 2001 issue

Meanwhile, Doran and Zimmerman 2009 discovered that 97% of active climate researchers supported the consensus position, as noted by previous posters, and Anderegg et al 2010 found a considerable gap in expertise between pro-consensus and anti-consensus scientists.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Lastly, since when was science conducted by a fucking petition?