Basic experiment

In response to letters in the Gazette (May 9) by John Duck and John Gilcrist.

Remember, when studying elementary science in school, how the science teacher might explain a concept to the class and rather than just taking the teachers word for it the whole class would get out the Bunsen burners and test tubes, etc. and run an experiment to prove the concept, now we know, for example that water boils and evaporates at 100 degrees Celsius, a proven fact.

Science is about facts that are proven and can be repeated. Until it is a proven fact, it is just a theory, or opinion. A consensus of scientists is not proof of anything, rather it is a consensus of opinions.

Climate change is a proven fact: the climate has warmed by one degree in the last 150 years. What is not a proven fact is that the warming is all caused by humans namely CO2 emissions.

If you thought that “97 per cent of scientists agree” means that a massive survey of climate related science tests have been done, you are mistaken.

Let’s look at one of the studies of consensus that our authors have put forward as ‘proof’ of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The study by Lynas el al took 88,125 climate related papers and reduce that to 3000 randomly selected papers for closer examination of the extracts using key words to indicate the position taken. Of those 235 were not climate related after all and all and a further 1869 papers took no position. Four papers explicitly denied AGW. Leaving 892 papers out of 3000 acknowledging AGW.

The study concludes that 99.53 per cent of scientists agree with AGW. How can they and John Duck who claims that scientists agree “in almost perfect unison,” make that claim when 1869 out of 3000 or six per cent of scientist surveyed, in fact take no position.

This study is not the survey we may have thought, and it is hardly “proof ” of a consensus itself, let alone proof of AGW.

If our Gazette authors had empirical evidence of human caused emissions being the sole cause of climate change, they would surely quote that. However, since they don’t, they resort to dodgy consensus which even if true, still proves nothing.

Will Allgood, Jindivick