Link to this page What the science says InNaomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between and
Is corrected by - January 21, Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For example, while discussing a major U.
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science 2. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
This is not the case. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: The American Meteorological Society 6the American Geophysical Union 7and the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling 8.
Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions.
The papers were divided into six categories: Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.
Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known.
But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics.
The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.Naomi Oreskes - The Collapse of Western Civilization, Inquiring Minds Podcast " A View From the Climate Change Future," National Public Radio via Boston's WBUR Edited Volumes.
Dec 14, · The claim that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of global warming is widely made in climate change literature and by political figures.
4 The Scientiﬁc Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?
Naomi Oreskes In December , Discover magazine ran an article on the top. Dec 14, · To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper[s] do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in.
Jun 16, · Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.
Nov 18, · In their replies to our paper (Pearce et al., ), both Cook () and Oreskes () agree with ourcentral point: that deliberating and mobilizing policy responses to climate change requires thinking beyond public belief in a scientific consensus.