Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Man made GW is a hoax.

Yeah, you tell 'em

[scandal 951]

In fact, science doesn't work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus.

No.

What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work.

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure...fic_Revolutions

Chronologically, Kuhn distinguishes between three phases. The first phase, which exists only once, is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is no consensus on any particular theory, though the research being carried out can be considered scientific in nature. This phase is characterized by several incompatible and incomplete theories. If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights, then the second phase, normal science, begins, in which puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is general consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts which are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed. Kuhn refers to this as a crisis, and they are often resolved within the context of normal science. However, after significant efforts of normal science within a paradigm fail, science may enter the third phase, that of revolutionary science, in which the underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is established. After the new paradigm's dominance is established, scientists return to normal science, solving puzzles within the new paradigm. A science may go through these cycles repeatedly, though Kuhn notes that it is a good thing for science that such shifts do not occur often or easily.

Note how often the term "consensus" appears here?

According to Kuhn, normal science is all about consensus. That doesn't mean we don't have a zillion refereed journal papers - we do! They are part of "working out the puzzles", according to Kuhn. Consensus building in science absolutely matters, no less than consensus building in politics. Anyone who ignores that and believes that scientific progress is all about some kind of quest for "truth" has never been part of the competitive "publish or perish" world.

None of this is to say that the gist of your article, Steve, is wrong. It's dead on. There is a strong and building consensus, based on hard evidence, for GW. Those who deny really are outside the pale of the consensus. That includes our good friend Gary.

[GaryC 7]

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus

Dr Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, writes:

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to “peer-reviewed research” and “scientific consensus” as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.

The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.

Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline – from the physical sciences to economics –consists of correcting previous mistakes.

At any given time, “scientific consensus” may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

“Scientific consensus” often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms "peer review" and "scientific consensus" often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.

Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/...ntific_con.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

Everything I've heard from people in the family who are members of that small world leads me to believe that's true.

That said, science is still better than the alternative.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sounds like the Skull and Bones.

Oh the price we pay for keeping up with professional and academic research.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sounds like the Skull and Bones.

Once the board of elders approves your thesis, they will teach you the secret handshake.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sounds like the Skull and Bones.

Once the board of elders approves your thesis, they will teach you the secret handshake.

I was hoping Magog would come down and give me the secret source that has the answer before I get initiated. But I don't think C4C would appreciate the double membership. Or would they... hmmmm...

[GaryC 7]

Scientists are people just like any other. They don't want to be proven wrong and will protect their positions. So many scientists have their reputations staked on man made GW it will litterally take an ice age to get them to admitt their mistake. The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I thought hippies controlled the world through drum circles.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

I didn't realize HAL was peer-reviewing your links.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus

Dr Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, writes:

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to "peer-reviewed research" and "scientific consensus" as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.

The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.

Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline – from the physical sciences to economics –consists of correcting previous mistakes.

At any given time, "scientific consensus" may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another's work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a "top" journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

"Scientific consensus" often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms "peer review" and "scientific consensus" often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.

Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government's policy should be suspect, whether or not it's peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/...ntific_con.html

Gary, Gary, Gary... Why do you choose to quote a conservative expert on economics to bolster your argument? Because you can't find a true scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Higgs

Edited July 2, 2009 by ready4ONE

[GaryC 7]

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

I didn't realize HAL was peer-reviewing your links.

His personal bias trumps all else. If a scientist has a bias like that and is peer reviewing something that he does not agree with he can kill the study. This is how we have the consensus.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

I didn't realize HAL was peer-reviewing your links.

His personal bias trumps all else. If a scientist has a bias like that and is peer reviewing something that he does not agree with he can kill the study. This is how we have the consensus.

Ummm you didn't quote a scientist Gary, you quoted a CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The peer review process is flawed and subject to personal opinion. HAL is a shining example of this.

I didn't realize HAL was peer-reviewing your links.

His personal bias trumps all else. If a scientist has a bias like that and is peer reviewing something that he does not agree with he can kill the study. This is how we have the consensus.

HAL killed the dissenters?

[GaryC 7]

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus

Dr Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, writes:

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to "peer-reviewed research" and "scientific consensus" as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.

The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.

Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline – from the physical sciences to economics –consists of correcting previous mistakes.

At any given time, "scientific consensus" may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another's work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a "top" journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

"Scientific consensus" often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms "peer review" and "scientific consensus" often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.

Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government's policy should be suspect, whether or not it's peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2007/...ntific_con.html

Gary, Gary, Gary... Why do you choose to quote a conservative expert on economics to bolster you argument? Because you can't find a true scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Higgs

He is a doctor and is familure with the peer review process. Is he any less qualified than HAL who is a biology scientist? Oh, wait. He is conservative so that disqualifies him. Sorry, I forgot.