Topic: Global Warming

Camp: Agreement

Camp Statement History

Objected
Live
In Review
Old
Statement : The climate on Planet Earth is always in a state of change. Consensus has not yet been reached as to how much of that change can be attributed to natural factors and how much is due to human influence. 


'Scientific consensus' is often cited as the predominant proof of anthropogenic climate change, often referred to as ‘global warming.’ It is certainly the case that the overwhelming majority of scientists attribute current warming trends to human impact. It is also true that scientific consensus, even a unanimous consensus, can be in error. Questions of who and what should be considered relevant in the debate, and how the named effect should be defined, often remain as sub-camps of the group promoting 'scientific consensus' as meaningful to the issue. 


By definition, the 'scientific method' always leads to a test that can be independently verified, and the test always has both a pass and a fail state. Questions of what measure we should use to determine global temperature, and what tests we should create to determine whether man plays a significant role in changing any measured temperature reading, often remain as sub-camps of the group promoting the 'scientific method' as meaningful to the issue.

Edit summary : Updated statement for clarity
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Jim Bennett
Go live Time :
Statement : Consensus has not been reached on how the claimed effect called Global Warming should be measured.
'Scientific consensus' is one of the popular measures people use to determine whether the effect exists. In the 'scientific consensus' determination, all scientists relevant to the issue would agree that the effect exists. Questions of who we should consider relevant, and how the named effect should be defined, often remain as sub-camps of the group promoting 'scientific consensus' as meaningful to the issue.
'Scientific method' is another of the popular measures people use to determine whether the effect called Global Warming exists. Using the 'scientific method' requires hypotheses predicting precisely measurable effects of the Global Warming model that would not happen otherwise, such as a certain unusual global temperature being reached by a certain date, or a duplicatable laboratory demonstration of carbon effect on temperature. By definition, the 'scientific method' always leads to a test that can be independently verified, and the test always has both a pass and a fail state. Questions of what measure we should use to determine global temperature, and what tests we should create to determine whether man plays a significant role in changing any measured temperature reading, often remain as sub-camps of the group promoting 'scientific method' as meaningful to the issue.

Edit summary : Statement assumed 'scientific consensus' as meaningful to issue.
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Trent Fillmore
Go live Time :
Statement : Many claim there is a 'scientific consensus' on the issue of Global Warming. But is there really? There are several indicators some claim indicate otherwise, such as petitions like the Manhattan Declaration allegedly signed by hundreds of scientists, and the Global Warming Petition Project allegedly signed by tens of thousands. However many on the other side point out how biased, unreliable and old data like this is.
On January 30, 2012 the Register published this article chronicling some of the "Hitchhikers'-esque" antics done by both sides of this critical issue. This further reveals the necessity of a much more broad, concise, and definitive survey, including detailed information about the qualifications and types of people on all sides of this issue. It would be extremely valuable to have a very comprehensive, real time survey, of most experts, with enough capability so if there is any trending in either direction, as ever more scientific data comes in, such could be definitively tracked in a way that neither side could question. Unlike today where much is being doubted by both sides.


Edit summary : New version with less bias and new link to Register article.
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brent_Allsop
Go live Time :
Statement :
Many claim there is a 'scientific consensus' on the issue of Global Warming. But is there really? There are several indicators some claim indicate otherwise, such as petitions like the Manhattan Declaration allegedly signed by hundreds of scientists, and the Global Warming Petition Project allegedly signed by tens of thousands.
The goal of the grass roots developed canonizer.com is to bring some modern rationality to controversial scientific issues such as this and finally once and for all do some real measuring or surveying of the people involved to get some concise and quantitative numbers to put behind some of these claims.
Modern internet tools such as automated social networking, peer ranking of experts, collaborative validation of signatures or support by everyone, bottom up delegated support structures, wiki technologies, networked systems and game rules for collaborative development of statements that harness biases and self interests to everyone's advantage and so on should be able to easily bring some rational and methodology to the many baseless claims of yes there is, no there isn't a consensus on such scientific issues.
If you are a scientist in this field, or you know someone you trust who is, please let us know how you feel on this issue by at least supporting a camp. Or even better help to develop the most concise, rational, and well supported camp statement on this issue and help us improve this process.


Edit summary : First Version
Submitted on :
Submitter Nick Name : Brent_Allsop
Go live Time :