[posted by Justin Levine]
Questions raised by the first link listed above:
Just how many climate scientists are there in the world? 2,500 seems like a rather small fraction of them, so I doubt that the IPCC has the authority to speak for the “scientific community” (whatever that might mean) – but I admittedly have no idea how many there are world wide (or just how broadly the term “climate scientist” might be defined).
Did all 2,500 perform independent research in coming to the “consensus”? I doubt it. More likely, only a small handful have done research into the question, and the rest probably just followed along and took what their peers said at face value. Those who didn’t take the research at face value likely got fed up with the IPCC and left. Since there is no formal competing organization with the IPCC, it can then still maintain that their report constitutes “consensus”.
As the article points out:
Mahi Sideridou, climate policy director at environmental group Greenpeace, rejected criticism of the IPCC.
“Saying that the IPCC is not balanced is probably the most ridiculous claim that anybody can make,” she said, stressing the group’s reports were based on scientific consensus.
Just keep repeating that over and over again until you convince yourself…”consensus”, “consensus”, “consensus”…no need for debate or for questioning the motives of a small fraction of the world’s scientists because there is already “consensus”.
A magical word that “consensus” is.
As for Roy Spencer, we all know that we don’t have to listen to this “principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former NASA scientist”. Because after all, he gave his speech to the “Republican Women of Madison during a lunch meeting”. That proves that Spencer is in the pocket of big oil and is simply lying about the issue in order to line his own pocket.
So rest assured, there is still “consensus” because those that dispute the “consensus” don’t count.