El consenso sobre el origen humano del cambio del clima no ha sido demostrado aún
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.3368Palabras clave:
Cambio del Clima, consenso, ciencia, mayorías, postverdadResumen
Durante las últimas tres décadas hemos asistido a la configuración de dos nuevos paradigmas. El primero de ellos en el ámbito científico es el llamado cambio del clima, y el segundo que podríamos denominar paradigma científico-social, y que se refiere al primero, el consenso sobre el origen humano del cambio del clima a partir de las emisiones por la quema de combustibles fósiles.
En el presente trabajo el autor revisa los principales textos que han dado lugar al segundo después de una breve presentación del primero siguiendo las principales conclusiones de los informes del Panel Intergubernamental del Cambio del Clima (IPCC). No es objeto de discusión o debate de este trabajo el cambio del clima ni su origen, pero sí lo es cómo se ha llegado a un consenso sobre su origen que es aparente, porque en realidad los textos que lo proponen no lo han demostrado.
La revisión de los trabajos más citados en todos los ámbitos, científicos, políticos, culturales, medios de comunicación etc., refleja que la cifra manejada de consenso en torno al 97% no se ajusta a los datos que los textos presentan, surge de un tratamiento parcial y sesgado de la información, y se refiere siempre a la opinión de un reducido número de personas. La revisión de los datos publicados sugiere con todas las cautelas que una cifra más acorde a la realidad estaría en torno al 50%.
Las temperaturas han aumentado desde que se tienen registros en observatorios, y no hace falta ningún consenso para afirmar esta realidad empírica. Pero sostener por una simple cuenta de mayorías o por el criterio de autoridad que la causa predominante es la emisión de gases derivados de la quema de combustibles fósiles no es científicamente lícito, pues nunca una mayoría ha sido prueba de verdad.
Descargas
Citas
Allen, M. 2011. In defence of the traditional null hypothesis: remarks on the Trenberth and Curry WIREs opinion articles. WIREs Climate Change 2, 931-934. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.145.
Allison, D., Brown, A.W., George, B.J., Kaiser, K.A. 2016. Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix. Nature 530, 27-29. http://doi.org/10.1038/530027a.
Anderegg, W.R.L., Prall, J.W., Harold, J., Schneider, S.H. 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 12107-12109.
Aarstad, J. 2010. Expert credibility and truth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 47. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012156107.
Bast, J.L. 2013. AMS Survey shows no consensus on Global Warming. Policy Brief. The Heartland Institute, November, 28.
Bedford, D. 2010. Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation. Journal of Geography 109, 159-165. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.201 0.498121.
Bedford, D., Cook, J. 2013. Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change: A response to Legates, Soon and Briggs. Science & Education 22, 2019- 2030.
Benestad, R.E., Hygen, H.P., Dorland, R. van, Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D. 2013. Agnotology: learning from mistakes. Earth Science Dynamics Discussion 4, 451-505. https://doi.org/10.5194/ esdd-4-451-2013.
Biddle, J.B., Leuschner, A. 2015 Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5, 261- 278.
Bodestein, L. 2010. Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 52. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013268108.
Bray, D., von Storch, H. 2013. A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013. Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht Geestacht, Germany.
Carlton, J.S., Perry-Hill, R., Huber, M., Prokopy, L.S. 2015. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research Letters 10, 094025. http://doi. org/10.1088/1784-9326/10/9/094025.
Christy, J.R. 2016. U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. 2 Feb 2016. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate- ChristyJ-20160202.pdf.
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., Skuce, A. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8, 024024. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/8/2/024024.
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Skuce, A., Jacobs, P., Painting, R., Honeycutt, R., Green, S.A., Lewandowsky, S., Richardson, M., Way, R.G. 2014. Reply to Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: a re-analysis. Energy Policy 73, 706-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.002.
Cook, J., Cowtan, K. 2015. Reply to Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’. Environmental Research Letters 10, 039002.
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P., Anderegg, W.R.L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E.W., Carlton, J.S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A.G., Green, S.A., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Rice, K. 2016. Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human- caused Global Warming. Environmental Research Letters 11, 048002.
Curry, J. 2011. Nullifying the climate null hypothesis. WIREs Climate Change 2, 919-924. http:// doi.org/10.1002/wcc.141.
Curry, J. 2015. State of the climate debate in the U.S. Remarks to U.K. House of Lords. 15 Junio. https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/15/state-of-the-climate-debate-in-the-u-s/.
Curry, J. 2017. Climate models for the layman. The Global Warming Policy Fundation, Briefing 24. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf.
Dean, B.J.F. 2015. Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ Environmental Research Letters 10 039001.
Doran, P.T., Zimmerman, M.K. 2009. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS 90, 22-23. http://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002.
Duarte, J.L. 2014. Comment on ‘scientists’ views about attribution of global warming’ Enviromental. Science Technology 48, 14057-14058. http://doi.org/10.1021/es504574v.
Engqvist, L., Frommen, J.G. 2008. The h-index and self citation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 250-252. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.009.
Friends of Science Society. 2014. 97% Consensus? No! Global warming math, myth & social proofs. Friends of Science Society, Calgary, Canadá, 50 pp. Disponible en: https://www. friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf.
Granqvist, R. 2009. Comment on “examining the scientific consensus on climate change”. EOS 90, 27. http://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO270008.
Harari, Y.N. 2016. Homo Deus. Breve historia del mañana. Ed Debate, ISBN: 9788499924212.
Harlos, C., Edgell, T.C., Hollander, J. 2017. No evidence of publication bias in climate change science. Climatic Change 140, 375-385. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1880-1.
Harde, H. (2014). Advanced two-layer climate model for the assessment of global warming by CO2. Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change 1, 2374-3794. http://doi.org/10.15764/ ACC.2014.03001.
Helsdon, J. 2009. Further comment on “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change”. EOS 90, 27. http://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO270009.
Houston, J.R., Dean, R.G. 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research 27, 409-417. https://doi. org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1.
Idso, C.D., Carter, R.M., Singer, S.F. 2015. Why scientists disagree about global warming. The Heartland Institute Arlington Heights, Illinois, 122 pp.
IPCC. 2013. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. In: T.F. Stocker et al. (Eds.) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H, Braman, D. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14, 147-174. http://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.
Kahan, D.M. 2015. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology 36, 1-43. http://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244.
Lafambroise, D. 2016. Peer review. Why skepticism is essential. The Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 20. ISBN 978-0-9931189-3-7.
Lainer, L. (Dir.). 2015. An elaboration of AAAS Scientific´s views. A deeper examination of views about key science topics by members of the American Association for Advance Science. Pew Research Center, 48 pp. Disponible en: http://www.pewinternet.org/packages/science-and-society/.
Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M., Monckton of Brenchley, C. 2013a. Learning and teaching climate science: the perils of consensus knowledge using agnotology. Science & Education 22, 2007-2017. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-95883.
Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M., Monckton of Brenchley, C. 2013b. Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: a rejoinder to agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Science & Education 24, 299-318. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11191-013-9647-9.
Lefsrud, L.M., Meyer, R.E. 2012. Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ discursive construction of climate change. Organization Studies 33, 1477-1506. http://doi. org/10.1177/0170840612463317.
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., Gignac, G.E. 2013. NASA Faked the Moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science 245, 622-633. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686.
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Lloyd, E. 2016. The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11229-016-1198-6.
Lindzen, R. 2012. Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Euresis 2, 161- 193.
Liu, X., Vedlitz, A., Stoutenborough, J.W., Robinson, S. 2015. Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies. Climatic Change 131, 487-503. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1390-6.
Losh, S.C. 2016. Agreement among environmental scientists: higher than previously thought. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 1-6. http://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616634958.
Lovelock, J. 2008. La venganza de la Tierra. Planeta, 268 pp.
Luening, S., Vahrenholt, F. 2017. Medieval Warning Project Map. Disponible en: http://t1p.de/ mwpdownloaded (consulta 27/08/2017).
Maibach, E., Stenhouse, N., Cobb, S., Ban, R., Bleistein, A. et al. 2012. American Meteorological Society member survey on global warming: Preliminary findings (February 12). Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication. Disponible en : http://climate.gmu.edu.
Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159, 56-63. http://doi.org/10.1126/ science.159.3810.56.
O´Neil, S.J., Boykoff, M. 2010. Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?. PNAS 107, 39 E1S1. http:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010507107.
Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306, 5702. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618.
Peiser, B. 2005. The letter science magazine rejected. Energy and Environment 16, 685-688. http:// doi.org/10.1260/0958305054672330.
Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pépin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399, 429-436. http://doi.org/10.1038/20859.
Pielke, R. Sr., Beven, K., Brasseur, G., Calvert, J., Chahine, M., Dickerson, R.R., Entekhabi, D., Foufoula-Georgiou, E., Gupta, H., Gupta, V., Krajewski, W., Krider, E.P., Lau, W.K.M., McDonnell, J., Rossow, W., Schaake, J., Smith, J., Sorooshian, S., Wood, E. 2009. Climate Change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. EOS 90, 10. http:// doi.org/10.1029/2009EO450008.
Powell, J. 2014. Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 1-6. http://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616634958.
Pew Research Center (PRC) (2015) An elaboration of AAAS Scientists ‘views. A deeper examination of views about key science topics by members of the American Association for the advancement of Science. In: L. Rainie (Dir.), 48 pp. Disponible en: http://www. pewinternet.org/packages/science-and-society/.
Rapp, D. 2014. Assessing Climate Change. Springer, 3ª ed., 816 pp.
Rosenberg, S., Vedlitz, A., Cowman, D., Zahran, S. 2010. Climate Change: A Profile of U.S. Climate Scientists’ Perspectives. Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 20 p. (Consultado en su version original, publicado posteriormente en Climatic Change 101, 311-329).
Schulte, K-M. 2008. Scientific consensus on climate change? Energy & Environment 19, 281-286.
Stenhouse, N., Maibach, E., Cobb, S., Ban, R., Bleistein, A., Croft, P., Bierly, E., Seitter, K., Rasmussen, G., Leiserowitz, A. 2014. Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95, 1029-1040. https://doi.org/10.1175.BAMS-D-13-00091.1.
Strengers, B., Verheggen, B., Vringer, K. 2015. Climate science survey. Questions and responses. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 39 p.
Tol, R.S.J. 2014a. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: a re-analysis. Energy Policy 73, 701-705.
Tol, R.S.J. 2014b. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: rejoinder. Energy Policy 73, 709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045.
Tol, R.S.J. 2016. Comment on ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’. Environmental Research Letters 11, 048001.
Trenberth, K.E. 2011. Attribution of climate variations and trends to human influences and natural variability. WIREs Climate Change 2, 925-930. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.142.
Verheggen, B., Strengers, B., Cook, J. van Dorland, R., Vringer, K., Peters, J. Visser, H., Meyer, L. 2014. Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming. Environmental Science & Technology 48, 8963-8971. http://doi.org/10.1021/es501998e.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
El autor o autora conserva todos los derechos sobre su artículo y cede a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, no siendo necesaria la autorización de la revista para su difusión una vez publicado. Una vez publicada la versión del editor el autor está obligado a hacer referencia a ella en las versiones archivadas en los repositorios personales o institucionales.
El artículo se publicará con una licencia Creative Commons de Atribución, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que se mencione la autoría del trabajo y la primera publicación en esta revista.
Se recomienda a los autores/as el archivo de la versión de editor en repositorios institucionales.
