…to respond to this post.
There are still some of you around, not just Messrs. Idso, Hughes, Lindzen and the well-known, but also those of you with whom I have debated, argued and discussed the subject of climate change over the past several months. Please will you browse through these pages.
This is the result of a search on Google scholar, using the advanced search tool, specifying the exact phrase “global climate change”, between 1998-2007, and filtering the results further by including only the four categories starting; ‘Biology…’, ‘Chemistry…’, ‘Engineering…’ and ‘Physics…’. The procedure has returned 15,300 results.
[This search method was inspired by recent discussions of the as-yet unpublished paper by Schulte, and observations and comments on the website 'Rabett Run']
My question is simple: after browsing through a few pages of the results, or selecting a number of the papers, what reasonable inferences can be made about the issue of ‘global climate change’?
That it is a much-discussed subject in the literature of many academic disciplines is a given. That many of the papers do not question the ‘consensus’ scientific view of climate change is also a given. But what does this body of evidence, from many scientific disciplines, suggest to you, a rational, intelligent person, about the scientific and rational status of climate science?
You may argue that, in failing to question the assumption of anthropogenic global warming, these scientists, mostly outside the academic discipline of climate science, are relying on the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, which are ipso facto incorrect. This would mean that each and all of these papers relies on at least one false assumption. This, in turn, would imply that all of this science, all of the processes involved in preparing research, making observations, analysing results, and peer-reviewing the finished papers, was intrinsically flawed.
If you make this contention, you are effectively challenging the intelligence and rationality of what could arguably amount to the entirety of the scientific process, and all of the people who engage in it and with it. Thus, you are pitting your own rationality against that of large bodies of scientists, and inferring that they have overlooked, or misunderstood something which only you and a few others have understood correctly.
I would contend that any rational, intelligent person who took a little time to read even the very briefest summaries of a representative proportion of these 15,300 papers, will come to some fairly straightforward conclusions.
Firstly, that there is a vast body of evidence through all disciplines that global climate change is a matter of importance which is seriously addressed by each of these disciplines.
Secondly, that the vast majority of this research points towards impacts of global climate change which are negative, destructive, undesirable or, under certain circumstances, even alarming in their implications.
Thirdly, that the global warming which is consistently established as a causal agent in these impacts is potentially dangerous, either to specific or general objects, and that this inference is made time and time again on the basis of existing observation and due diligence in methodology.
And then there is the final, impressionistic response to the sheer immensity of this body of evidence, which, we should remember, is only a small proportion of what may be available on the subject. The overriding impression is one of concern, of negative consequences, of recognised and real risks to enough phenomena to count as the entire ecosystem.
So I am asking you, as rational, intelligent people, to explain to me where I have gone wrong. What error of reasoning have I, and by implication, all of these scientists, been guilty of? Why you feel that, in the face of this evidence, which is contradictory to your skepticism, you have grounds to challenge the claims of those who tell us that global climate change is real, that it entails risks which are potentially dangerous to us and our world, and that action to ameliorate these risks is both desirable and necessary?
So once again I ask you; please respond to this post…