Closer to option 1, but I'm a meteorology major, so that's to be probably to be expected.
Not really.
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."
I don't now if referencing a 2003 claim of consensus is really valid considering recent revelations.
2005 maybe?
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
How about 2007?
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/themes/wmoprod/documents/iwtc_statement.pdf
AMA didn't go all out and say global warming is definitely causing an increase in hurricanes, only that studies seem to preliminarily indicate some convergence. They sure as heck didn't switch their position about global warming however.
Climategate began in 2009, though some of the fishy climate science was known before then. Just read over Snowguy's climate thread if you haven't already.
But really the whole consensus thing is political BS - if there was a consensus I don't think there would be this much debate going on involving real scientists on both sides. Besides, even if there was a consensus that does not imply correctness. Many times in history the scientific community at large has held ideas that were incorrect but widely accepted only to have it changed by new data.
But there
is a scientific consensus, my friend, even if consensus doesn't mean unanimity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensusCompare it to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingThe first two lists certainly seem to reflect the bulk of scientific community over a relative small number of dissenters, even respectable ones. Climategate says little good about the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Center's methodology and management, but its downright silly how professional climate change skeptics are grasping at straws to support their argument that the literally thousands of studies over the last 2 decades supporting manmade climate change as a reality are all a giant hoax based on the academic dishonesty of one research lab.
There really isn't much debate among respectable scientists on this point, Dibble, only among the general public. The fact that public opinion is split on global warming--and even split as to whether they think scientists are split on global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Effect_of_climate_change_denial doesn't change the black and white fact that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.
I generally don't like blaming the media (too easy), but here there's a real case to be made. We have Fox and its allies who make no bones about having a predetermined ideological narrative to persue. No surprise there, but the rest of the MSM is little better. News networds are increasingly incapable of actually addressing any position as outlandish no matter how ungrounded in reality.
If a network does a story about "experts" saying the sky is green, they will present one "expert" claiming it's green, and another saying "Uh, no, it's blue". Assuming the first "expert" isn't wearing a tin hat (or at least took it off for the interview) the correspondent will treat both experts with the same degree of deference, asking an equivalent number of favorable and challenging questions to each with no discernable difference in tone or agreement. The fact that the correspondent can look outside and see the sky is clearly blue, and research finds few if any credible persons willing to support the first expert's contrary claim will not change this evenhandedness in the interview. Oh no, for you see that would be clear evidence of "bias".
And at the end, notwithstanding the first expert's talking points not making an ounce of sense under basic scrutiny, and the second expert patiently explaining how the sky is, yep, still blue, at the end of the debate the correspondent's followup will
never indicate one side was clearly full of stupid, but rather declare the matter "a controversy". John Q. Public watching at home has no reason not to think that the scientific community is in fact "split" on the issue of whether the sky is green. After all, the experts he saw debate the issue were tied 1-1. So neither side must be totally right and the truth is probably somewhere in between. At any rate the issue
obviously is still up for debate.
The MSM is more guilty of spinelessness than bias. One will find this "make no waves" approach even on "liberal" networks like MSNBC and CBS. Again add to this the significant portion of Americans who follow Fox and the like for news, which has no qualms proclaiming climate change to be the (liberal driven) hoax of the century. With this dynamic in place, why shouldn't many Americans believe the scientific community is at best "split" on global warming?
The best analogy is Creationism. The fact the scientific community, to put it mildly, has a consensus the Earth is a tad more than 6000 years old doesn't stop a significant number of Americans from believing otherwise, or even that there are legitimate scientific arguments to the contrary among "experts". The difference is that while probably no reputable peer-reviewed geologist or scientist would argue the Earth is only 6000 years old, maybe (literally) 1 in 100 legitimate scientists may claim tangible manmade climate change isn't occurring, which still is enough to keep the debate within the MSM's definition of "a controversy".
All that said, I totally agree with you about scientific consensus sometimes being proven wrong as paradigms shift. Still, I don't see the hope that the consensus may possibly change someday to be sufficient reason for inaction by policymakers.
Poll
