The question often arises of “what does consensus mean in the usual talk of the consensus on climate change?”
The answer is simple, but controversial. It means that almost everyone who works and publishes in climate science is convinced by the current evidence that climate change is happening, and that it is primarily caused by human beings.
That is all. And yet that is quite significant, given the nature of science.
The theory and supporting data has been around and largely unchallenged in general (specific points have been challenged and refined) for more than 50 years, and it goes back to the 19th Century. This general consensus is unusual, because most scientific theories are constantly under challenge from within their domains, as scientists can gain status for showing problems with theories and proposing persuasive new interpretations of data. Science tends to be fractured that way. Furthermore, there will always be problems with the data and its interpretation that need to be explained, and this gives an opening for new theories and approaches. Finally, in complex systems predictions are hard to make, and sometimes predictions have been conservative and wrong – although this is not discussed that much.
When a scientific theory remains around for that length of time and the consensus is high, it’s usually pretty good. It is better than the alternatives.
Now of course, the great thing about science is that people eventually change their minds when faced with better theories, or data which contradicts the theories. The theory can be abandoned. So far this has not happened. It could happen, but hoping that it could happen is not the best way to run your politics.
The question people need to think about is: is climate change a conspiracy joining the notoriously factional UN (which usually can’t get its act together to do anything simple) with competitive scientists of all kinds of political persuasion (who often face hostility from governments who don’t want to act on climate change) to put forward a socialist conspiracy, or is it more likely that fossil fuel companies who (at best) have a dubious reputation for honesty and democracy, fund think-thanks to deny climate change, and promote climate change denial, because it is in their economic interest to do so?
Climate change is one of the most highly probable pieces of contemporary science. It should not be rendered political, even though it is in some corporate interests to do so.
Where climate change should be political and openly so, is on the question of how we try and prevent, or ameliorate, it.
Tags: climate change, Disinformation
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 
Leave a comment