The scientific consensus on global warming is unequivocal. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organisations have agreed that the Earth is warming due to the increased greenhouse gas emissions and that these effects are caused by humans. That bold part seems to be where the public debate lies (most people believe the world is heating but many believe that it is not attributable to people, ie the warming is part of a natural cycle).
A study last year revealed that only 41% believe that climate change is due to human activity, and 1 in five believe there is no solid evidence for climate change at all (Source).
You only have to read a thread on this forum to see how much contention there is concerning climate change in the public arena. But what I find most odd is that this contention does not exist in the scientific community. Almost every major scientific organisation has agreed with the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change, including;
(Source)
In 2004 Naomi Oreskes did a survey of over 900 scientific papers filed between 1993 and 2003 under climate change categories, analysing them based on which side of the debate they stood on. Of the 928 papers, not a single one disagreed with the scientific concensus.(Source)
Of course there are a small minority of scientists who oppose the mainstream view (see here) but they make up only a very small portion of the scientific community.
Now, this thread isn't intended as a debate about global warming/climate change. I'm curious about why there is so much debate about the issue in the public arena, while there is an almost total consensus in the scientific community. What makes average Joe think that he knows more about the issue than thousands of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to understanding it?
A study last year revealed that only 41% believe that climate change is due to human activity, and 1 in five believe there is no solid evidence for climate change at all (Source).
You only have to read a thread on this forum to see how much contention there is concerning climate change in the public arena. But what I find most odd is that this contention does not exist in the scientific community. Almost every major scientific organisation has agreed with the mainstream scientific view of anthropogenic climate change, including;
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The Join Science Academies (plus Brazil, China and India)
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Geophysical Union
American Institute if Physics
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
(Source)
In 2004 Naomi Oreskes did a survey of over 900 scientific papers filed between 1993 and 2003 under climate change categories, analysing them based on which side of the debate they stood on. Of the 928 papers, not a single one disagreed with the scientific concensus.(Source)
Of course there are a small minority of scientists who oppose the mainstream view (see here) but they make up only a very small portion of the scientific community.
Now, this thread isn't intended as a debate about global warming/climate change. I'm curious about why there is so much debate about the issue in the public arena, while there is an almost total consensus in the scientific community. What makes average Joe think that he knows more about the issue than thousands of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to understanding it?
Facebook
Twitter