I am not afraid to accept a theory or concept by relying primarily on the scientific consensus. I make this statement because a recent article by Ottawa Citizen journalist Dan Gardner outlined perfectly why I believe in climate change: too many scientists accept it; there's too much evidence. For me it's enough that 80-90 percent of the climatologists accept anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to believe that it's very likely real. I read a lot of scientific journals, magazines, articles and websites and their arguments and positions are clear: global warming is happening, it's man made, and it's serious. Further studies and reports confirm that there is a consensus among the scientific community. Unfortunately I have been, much like Dan (although not nearly to the same extent I'm sure), lambasted by my peers, friends, family, or fellow internet users in the past for simply ‘going with the grain'. For some people this is no better than taking leaps of faith, accepting ideas or concepts from higher authorities without question and closing the mind. But this is not blind submission. The evidence is there for everyone to see. I am comfortable accepting the consensus because I have examined the arguments and am satisfied with the answers that have been given. Everyone should be encouraged to do so; if you are skeptical, pull up the peer-reviewed journals, the reports, and the wealth of data, and get your hands dirty. However--and this is where it gets tricky--one will eventually reach an extent of their knowledge. As much as I read and examine the evidence, I can't do the science myself. At some point I have to rely on people with superior knowledge on the subject. I understand the Earth has a greenhouse effect, I understand that CO2 is being dumped into our atmosphere at an alarming rate, and I understand that these two realities cause the climate to warm thus producing rising sea levels and more intense storms. But at some point I need to acknowledge my intellectual limitations. I am not an expert on climate. Just as I would not say I know better than the doctor who says I have cancer, I would not say I know better than the majority of the world's climatologists that say man-made global warming is real. What qualifications do I have to look at the evidence for climate change and conclude that I know better than the thousands of men and women who've spent their lives researching the subject? If I come across an argument against global warming, my immediate response is to examine the counter-point. This evidence must have been examined at some point by climatologists--I reason--if a majority of experts still agree AGW is real, there must be a logical response. This is because, as a result of consensus, the burden of proof is now on the deniers. Burden of proof requires anyone making a claim to prove it with evidence. The amount of evidence required to prove global warming has been substantial enough to tip the position of the majority of scientists towards acceptance. This now means that the burden of proof is on those to disprove it, and they aren't winning.

I often get the impression that most people who do not accept AGW, or are skeptical, don't understand science and refuse to acknowledge their ignorance (of course not everybody, as there are legitimate scientists who don't accept it). Nothing in science is absolute. Even the best theories have flaws. Renowned septic Michael Shermer has referred to this concept as the residue problem: in any given theory there will always be residue (say 5%) that is unexplainable. The problem is that any explanation that attempts to account for this leftover, must also explain the remaining ninety-five percent. Consider the Giant Impact Hypothesis (the origin of the moon), the Big Bang, Dark Matter or the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs). All of these theories have problems, slight data that cannot be explained by said theory; but scientists don't throw them out because they can still explain most of the observed evidence. Some of these are more controversial than others. There are still some scientists who reject the concept of dark matter; that we don't need to invent a new type of matter, but reconsider our understanding of gravity. More scientists are leaning toward the notion that dark matter (whatever it really is), is necessary. This is because to change fundamentally how we view gravity to account for the dark matter, consequently disrupts general relativity. Einstein's theory of gravity may not yet be reconcilable with what we understand at the quantum level, but this does not mean it is false. Too much evidence confirms it. A new theory of gravity to explain the affects of dark matter simultaneously needs to account for everything that relativity does. Sure dark matter, may now have an explanation, but in doing so more things are left unexplained for which we previously had answers. The logical conclusions by most physicists: dark matter is real, we just don't understand what it is yet.

This is how science works, theories are never absolute, but they're the best explanation we have. Nothing in science is 100%, and sometimes we will have occurrences that seem alien, or contradictory to our theories of the world around us. There is no such thing as miracles, only probabilities. As I sit here writing this article there is a possibility I could spontaneously tunnel through the earth and emerge on the other side. This is possible because of the bizarre world of quantum mechanics which tells us that we can calculate the probability of any one thing happening. Why do we never observe such phenomenon? Because the odds of it happening are so ridiculous that it would take me the entire age of the universe to simply write out the notations.

But just as someone tunneling through the earth should not lead one to think that our understandings of the world are flawed, intense winters and hurricanes don't disprove or prove climate change. It's all about probability, and even in a warmer climate it is still probable to see chaotic and seemingly contradictory occurrences. The warmer the climate, the higher the probability of bad hurricanes and the lower probability of cold winters. Data for climate change is collected and analyzed over long periods of time by people qualified to do so. I must when analyzing anything in science, recognize that I am ignorant to much of the natural world. I don't understand quantum mechanics, I don't understand the exact nature of carbon and climate, but the scientists do. The evidence is continually supporting the theory, the theory is not 100% but it's the best explanation given the evidence. Dark Matter sounds bizarre, strange, unnatural, confusing, but just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it isn't real. There is a chance that climate change is not man made; there is a chance scientists are wrong. But given the amount of evidence and scientists who confirm and support it, the probability is low. There is a chance that the dinosaurs were not wiped out by a giant asteroid, but its unlikely. There is a chance that the Big Bang is not the explanation for the origin of our universe, but it's unlikely. There is a chance the germ theory for disease is wrong, but it is unlikely. There is a chance our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed and needs to be significantly altered, but it is unlikely. Scientists will continue to work on these problems, peer-review research and conceive of new theories and concepts. Some things are bound to change in the process, but as more scientists continue to accept AGW, it's safe to bet on who is right. At what point can we just follow the consensus?

Article originally published at: http://herrbesserwisser.blogspot.com/2010/06/follow-consensus.html