Long-time readers of EclectEcon know that I am what is called a Global-Warming Skeptic. Check the links here, for example.
I'm not a denier; I'm just not sure. For example, when I look at how far the Athabasca Glacier has receded, it is impossible to deny that at in some parts of the world average temperatures seem to have risen.
At the same time, I know there are parts of the world where ice continues to build up. And the year-to-year variation in temperatures is so big that discerning longer-term trends and cycles is quite difficult (sounds like economics!). Furthermore, the temperature evidence for so many years was being taken from weather stations that were located near expanding cities where temperatures tend to be higher even if global temperatures are not rising.
But anytime I would express skepticism, or anytime I would suggest maybe the costs due to global warming might be much less than the costs of trying to prevent it, I'd be met with assertions that "it is settled science."
It isn't, as this survey of earth scientists reveals [h/t Jack].
And people claim that economists can't agree on anything! hunh.Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
If you have to take a vote, then I guess it's not settled science.
Thanks for the post.
Posted by: Brad Evans | February 18, 2013 at 09:02 AM
AGW Scientists have correctly predicted 9 of the last 5 warming periods.
***Possibly plagiarized from a well known economist.
Posted by: Rick | February 20, 2013 at 09:22 AM
Consensus either way is not a metric to determine whether a scientific theory is valid. Only solid, reproducible empirical evidence can falsify a theory.
How well have the IPCC's predictions worked out? You be the judge.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11143
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11042
If the predictons are that bad then so is the "science" behind AGW.
Posted by: Patrick Carroll | February 23, 2013 at 02:16 PM