The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

[73 Jock]

Your view of unnatural vs natural pertains more to the metaphysical than the physical. There is nothing wrong with that just as long as we all understand the difference.

I believe the difference is moot.

Both the raw materials -- and the means of assembling them -- into a 1969 Camaro, or a nuclear bomb, existed on this planet billions of years before Man discovered how to do it.

Man exists on this planet. Therefore Man, Camaros and nuclear bombs are as natural to this planet as the spotted owl.

 

[teeroux]

good point jock

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So do any of y'all GW warning folks actually do anything of significances to try to reduce your C02 and other greenhouse emmissions footprint? Are you operating your computer via solar or wind accumulated energy? Do you drive 'green' cars. Do you avoid flying in aircraft, especially jets? Have you insulated your home like a cave?

I see from posts above and elsewhere that many of you who are arguing how GW is real apparently are so concerned with it that you haven't given up your greenhouse gas belching vehicles such as SUV and pickup trucks and have commented on how you like certain luxuries, but these come with a pretty high greenhouse gas price tag.

It is hard to believe that y'all are so darned concerned with the alledged problem and yet are not doing squat to rectify it.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

At this point, I think Redworm should help to clarify our conflicting views.

As it should be. I was only explaining my position since you asked a valid question that needed clarification.

How can you still insist that nature cannot be predicted. I have just stated that the level of chance that a prediction could be right is based on statistics. Your statement that climate cannot be predicted is also rooted in statistics. I can make an educated guess that the planet will get warmer or colder, and you can make an educated guess that it is impossible to predict future climate. You tell me what the odds are that you will be right??? 90%, 99.99999999999999999999%...nevertheless YOU CANNOT RESPOND TO ME WITH 100% CONFIDENCE CAN YOU??? There is a concept in statistics called the null hypothesis which involves the possibility of no deviation (no change) from the current conditions. Your assessment is just that the null hypothesis (no change) is valid.

OK. Now, I'm thinking that you're not reading me loud and clear. I think since you appear that you keep putting words into my mouth, this might be my last feeble attempt politely tell you to not distort my statements.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT NO CHANGE IS VALID? I gave you clear and concise explaination of my opinion on the definition of GW to the best of my average joe ability. Nowhere did I say in ANY statements of mine that there will be NO change.
I'm not trying to prove that I'm right. I'm trying to prove that GW ISN'T fact. It's a theory.

I am 100% confident that I'm right that scientists cannot predict the future climate of earth. Tell you what. It will be a long standing bet. But, I'm willing to go the distance. ARE YOU?

Let's pick 5 cities that currently have a population under 100,000. They can be from any place in the world. The basic rules are that they need to be in different climates generally speaking. They also need to be a reasonable distance from each other. No suburb towns. Take the average temps in the last 10 years of each city. Ten years from now take the average again. If the temperature average has risen more than 5 degrees, I will gladly call my claims false and wrong.

If scientists that are in belief of the so called GW is on the rise at an astronomical rate, 5 measly degrees should be easily accomplished...

And, based on your 99.99999% assessment of predicting the weather, tell me what high temperature, humidity, wind, direction of wind, and low temperature will be on May 28, 2008 in Blue Grass Iowa. I'll even spot you 2 degrees, 3MPH wind, 10 degrees deviation of wind direction. You nor any scientist can do it. There's too many variables that constantly change on an hourly basis. I'm willing to bet a $50 postal money order that you nor IPCC can predict it even with my given deviations. So, are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

So do any of y'all GW warning folks actually do anything of significances to try to reduce your C02 and other greenhouse emmissions footprint? Are you operating your computer via solar or wind accumulated energy? Do you drive 'green' cars. Do you avoid flying in aircraft, especially jets? Have you insulated your home like a cave?

I think not. If not, there's explaination/rationalization though I'm sure....

 

[TheFacts]

I am 100% confident that I'm right that scientists cannot predict the future climate of earth. Tell you what. It will be a long standing bet. But, I'm willing to go the distance. ARE YOU?

Well I wish I had your confidence. I cannot in good faith say that it is possible or impossible to predict future climate. Yet you are so sure that it is impossible to predict. My recourse was trying to convince you that insisting that science does not have the capability to predict climate is incorrect. Your statement is not more or less valid than my statement. All predictions are based upon statistical odds yet you insist in a 100% confidence level with very little evidence to support your claim.

And, based on your 99.99999% assessment of predicting the weather, tell me what high temperature, humidity, wind, direction of wind, and low temperature will be on May 28, 2008 in Blue Grass Iowa. I'll even spot you 2 degrees, 3MPH wind, 10 degrees deviation of wind direction. You nor any scientist can do it. There's too many variables that constantly change on an hourly basis. I'm willing to bet a $50 postal money order that you nor IPCC can predict it even with my given deviations. So, are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Of course the odds are in your favor. However, if I did make a prediction and I got it right, you would hardly give the science it`s due credit and rationalize it as a lucky guess.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Well I wish I had your confidence. I cannot in good faith say that it is possible or impossible to predict future climate.

Well, YOU just said it, not me. And, I called you out on it...

Their level of accuracy is determined by statistical probabilities which can and does represent an asymptotic plot. To put this in basic terms, climate prediction for a particular region can be close to 100% over a period of days, ~95% over a period of weeks, ~80-90% over a period of years, and well you get the point.

Yet you are so sure that it is impossible to predict.

Well, not one time in history has scientists been able to predict the future climate in any specifics. So, yes I am sure that they still can't. There's been too little time between the first examples of evidence leading to claims of GW to now.

My recourse was trying to convince you that insisting that science does not have the capability to predict climate is incorrect. Your statement is not more or less valid than my statement. All predictions are based upon statistical odds yet you insist in a 100% confidence level with very little evidence to support your claim.

In my opinion, my statement is quite valid and yours isn't. My observations/evidence of history is supported by proof that scientists cannot predict the future climate. There's no denying that. The laws of probability are quite in my favor. They haven't been right yet after all these years since the inception of man. What makes you think that all of a sudden humans can now?

Of course the odds are in your favor. However, if I did make a prediction and I got it right, you would hardly give the science it`s due credit and rationalize it as a lucky guess.

I think I was loud and clear AGAIN...

...I will gladly call my claims false and wrong.

 

[HKuser]

Climate cycles could be tens of thousands or millions of years long. How many observances do you have to calculate your confidence level? The null hypothesis should be accepted if our data set is too incomplete to even calculate a full set of variations.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Climate cycles could be tens of thousands or millions of years long. How many observances do you have to calculate your confidence level? The null hypothesis should be accepted if our data set is too incomplete to even calculate a full set of variations.

If I could only be as eloquent in writing as you, HK. That is one of my schools of thought. I don't know if it's a null hypothesis (no change in climate) is necessarily correct. There has been very telling evidence in climate change in the long past. However, I don't believe any of climate changes since the creation of earth has been unnatural.

Hope that explains my assertion...

 

[mountainclmbr]

They call this consensus?

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

 

[TheFacts]

Well, not one time in history has scientists been able to predict the future climate in any specifics. So, yes I am sure that they still can't. There's been too little time between the first examples of evidence leading to claims of GW to now.

So you can confidently tell me that the thousands and thousands of meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, ecologists, etc...who are researching or have researched climate change do not have the insight to make accurate predictions on future climate conditions. WOW...then I guess that next time I read a scientific article by a well-respected researcher who presents compelling evidence on future climate conditions, I should dismiss his/her research as nonsense, because, by your logic, it is impossible to do such a prediction.

In my opinion, my statement is quite valid and yours isn't. My observations/evidence of history is supported by proof that scientists cannot predict the future climate. There's no denying that. The laws of probability are quite in my favor. They haven't been right yet after all these years since the inception of man. What makes you think that all of a sudden humans can now?

My God, why didn`t I see this before. You understand the motives of climate science sooooooo well that you can easily place all efforts of climate prediction into the trash bin. I, unfortunately, will not take one`s research and call it crap just because I have conditioned myself to a preconceived notion. If one`s research is indeed crap, I will let peer review prove it. Just because the laws are probability are in your favor, does not justify your bold statement.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

The fact that this topic has gone on for seven pages makes me think there is anything but a consenus. You can say what you want if "a majority" agree why has this gone on for so long? How long would a thread about gravity or whether the earth is round last?

 

[thallub]

"My God, why didn`t I see this before. You understand the motives of climate science sooooooo well that you can easily place all efforts of climate prediction into the trash bin. I, unfortunately, will not take one`s research and call it crap just because I have conditioned myself to a preconceived notion. If one`s research is indeed crap, I will let peer review prove it. Just because the laws are probability are in your favor, does not justify your bold statement."


+1 Looks like that CT size piece of the Antarctic ice shelf is falling off because it got cold and broke.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

So you can confidently tell me that the thousands and thousands of meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, ecologists, etc...who are researching or have researched climate change do not have the insight to make accurate predictions on future climate conditions.

Did you not read my posts? Wait...you only cherry picked them. Forgot that you did that...

WOW...then I guess that next time I read a scientific article by a well-respected researcher who presents compelling evidence on future climate conditions, I should dismiss his/her research as nonsense, because, by your logic, it is impossible to do such a prediction.

...and still do. No need to further beat the dead horse on trying to clarify with one that doesn't understand 6th grade reading comprehension.

Just because the laws are probability are in your favor, does not justify your bold statement.

So, you finally agree that the laws of probability are in my favor, yet it doesn't justify my "bold" statement? If anything, it doesn't necessarily justifies yours...

ONCE AGAIN, I DID NOT SAY THEIR RESEARCH IS CRAP. THEIR RESEARCH IS INCONCLUSIVE. THEY CANNOT PROVE WITH 100% CERTAINTY THE FUTURE OF OUR CLIMATE IN SPECIFICS. THEIR RESEARCH IS THEORY, NOT FACT.

Yes, it is impossible for them at this time to accurately tell the future of our climate, more less the weather. This might be the last time I will engage in debate with you since I'm tired of you continually side-step/avoid my simple questions. So, I will enter my last pleas:

1. Read post #29.
2. GW isn't a FACT, it's a THEORY. Prove to me otherwise.
3. Contrary to popular belief, the IPCC isn't the BIBLE on the fact finding tour of GW.
4. Several members of this forum have given quite telling stats that refute IPCC's claims, yet the GW believers won't even acknowledge those findings. Revert to item #3.
5. I will stand by my claim that scientists cannot predict the future of our climate in specifics. Also, Facts, that $50 bet is only good 'til the end of the day on Mar. 31st. Don't want to wait until it's so close to May 28, 2008 that even a gerbil can predict the weather...

The fact that this topic has gone on for seven pages makes me think there is anyone thing but a consenus. You can say what you want if "a majority" agree why has this gone on for so long? How long would a thread about gravity or whether the earth is round last?

Now, THAT was funny!

 

[homefires]

It's hot out side! Ho! It's Spring, Never Mind!

 

[Redworm]

Fact: Scientists claimed their findings indicated in the '70's we could be headed into an Ice Age very soon.

"Indicated"
"could"

Those are not the same as claiming a consensus. And if you're going to post such things as fact then I assume you can point to the reports from the 70s that made said claims?

Fact: I didn't believe it for a second. Of course, WE DIDN'T. Sounds like the opposite findings to me, ja?

Sounds like you're not listening to me. Science is about progression of knowledge through observation using empirical evidence. You have to remember the progression part. You can't just read an article in the paper that says "scientists suggest" and pretend that they're claiming it's an absolute fact.

This is one major of many, many examples that scientists were out in left field thinking that they can really predict mother nature.

Today, scientists are claiming GW as real only by seeing VERY recent "abrupt" changes in climate. That's called tunnel vision. Call it what you want. You can state they are having peer reviews. You can state that they are "gathering more evidence". But, just because it's happened only recently doesn't mean there's GW on the horizon.

Scientists are so set on reading one sentence that they fail to read the whole book.

Far from it. The changes in climate are not "very recent". Read the actual published reports and stop relying on talking heads and op-ed pieces.

I've given you one simple and a big blunder of one. Apparently unlike you, I have a full time job that commands more than just a 9 to 5 schedule. Also, I have more important things to do than utterly waste my time on reading from cover to cover all the published reports like having a life. Read post #29. I won't repeat it.

If you're the one to assert so much on providing stats, I think there's plenty here given as well as Jimpeel's links in past threads that blow just about every facet of GW out of the water.

No, you haven't given me an example. You've given me the punchline to a joke. If you want to back up "the egg thing" then I implore you to cite the published reports in peer-reviewed journals that indicate what you're claiming. Otherwise you're just parroting the public conception derived from shoddy reporting.

And I also have a full time job as well as a full time school schedule, I'm just really good at managing my time. You may not want to waste your time producing these reports but until you do your arguments are invalid.

I've already responded to post 29.

Jimpeel's links did not "blow every facet out of the water". Not even close. I remember that thread and remember being as equally frustrated with the number of people that holler up and down about looking at solid evidence in regards to gun control yet will jump to support some of the most circumstantial evidence against climate change just because it falls in line with their political agenda. Jimpeel's stuff was certainly interesting but much of it has been challenged and debunked, some of it easily explained and even all of it put together is still pretty insignificant compared to the amount of data on the other side of the argument.

Nope. Just proving that scientists keep contradicting themselves CONSTANTLY. Their suggestive reports change all the time.

No, not constantly and you're still ignoring the fact that different researchers can work on the same issue and find differing results and that those results are eventually refined. You're still ignoring the fact that reporting something like "finding suggested" is NOT a claim of consensus. So no, you haven't proven any such thing.

Nope, none at all. I believe everything what The New York Times publishes... When you step out in the real world one of these days, you'll find out that you won't have time to research every piece of information of every arguable subject that hits the headlines. Common sense and rational reasoning can actually be more accurate than a bunch of scientists in lab coats trapped under a glass...

I already live in the real world, thanks. And I don't read the New York Times.

But while I don't have time to learn all the things I'd like to learn I do insist on being informed when I'm arguing a position. So I'm sorry if you're too busy to read the dang report but until you do I don't see why your arguments should hold any weight.

To give an example, why would I accept your review of a rifle you've never even fired?

Common sense is nice but it falls flat on its face when people believe that their version of common sense is the truth and nothing can change their mind. Those folks in lab coats are using rational reasoning. That's one of the core principles of the scientific method so no, the average layman who relies purely on his "common sense" is not going to be more accurate.

Who said I trusted what they said about eggs? Point anywhere in my posts that I believed what they said.

Maybe I have done my own reading and just maybe have a formed opinion. I don't need to waste my time to prove to you otherwise. Besides, it's only my opinion.

It doesn't matter if I've read two sentences or more reports than you. One of the key arguments here is that you claim over and over again it's overwhelming majority of scientists agree. Others posted here some stats and links to prove you otherwise that appear to be just as reputable and you flat out deny the findings. Looks like to me you use the IPCC reports as if it's The Bible. Now, to me, that's scary in itself.

If you've done your own reading of published reports, that's wonderful. However if the only amount of reading you've done has been from news articles and op-eds then I'm sorry but you haven't done your homework. You haven't formed an opinion based on data, you've allowed others to form your opinion for you by presenting small chunks of relevant information. You're not getting anywhere close to the whole story.

The IPCC is a good starting point but there are other sources of information for consumption, including opposing sources. The simple fact is that the "stats and links" others have posted are still a mere drop in the bucket of the total amount of data available. I don't flat out deny anything; some of the things posted have been debunked, others are simply outdated.

Bull! I'm calling you out on this. You stated GW is a FACT. Not in this thread, but you outright said it is.

Well then I apologize for being unclear.

Post #70. Good for you. Just because I may or may not have read the IPCC report from cover to cover doesn't mean that I haven't made the effort to do the same. And again, where did I say that I allow news articles and talking heads to do my thinking?

Oh, that's one of many sources of information regarding sea level rise. I just picked a pretty one.

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to read it cover to cover but at least have a rough understanding of it or some of the other published reports out there.

Well, there you go. You just supported my opinion. Different researches coming to different conclusions. Sounds like they contradict themselves, doesn't it?

Contradict each other, not contradict themselves. There's a significant difference in those two phrases. That being said, you're pretending like there isn't a step following that. If two or more differing conclusions are found then research continues until we know more. But when two or more differing conclusions are found they don't hold press conferences and announce a consensus and start putting things into textbooks.

1. NOONE. Nobody knows what climate is normal.
2. NOONE. Just because nature isn't "intelligent" doesn't mean that it supposed to act/change a certain way that humans think it should.

That's the whole point of my assertion: The arrogance of most scientists.

B

Asked and answered. And I brought up the intelligence aspect because you referenced the part about mother nature's "intentions". That's not the same question as asking whether or not it's supposed to change in a certain way.

Still, asked and answered.

Yep, they're standing in Winslow Arizona and we're asking to point to Munich, Germany. Scientists are pointing east. Sure, it's east. But, they're also pointing to about 400,000 other cities as well....

I drove along I-40 once and completely forgot to stop at Winslow and get a picture of myself standing on a corner. Maybe one day.

However in real life a scientists would probably pull out a GPS receiver, good the coordinates and probably even pull out a globe just for fun.

 

[Redworm]

I also find amusement when I see the 'flat earther' and 'head in the sand' insults flung at those that aren't buying this GW thing. The flat earth folks of long ago were those that couldn't see past their own perceptions right? Higher CO2 being produced = GW because CO2 is a greenhouse gas seems to be the perception that can't be seen past despite credible evidence that the 2 aren't shown to have a correlation given available data. Head in the sand to the solar evidence that is very long term and thus far the only correlating data unless someone else knows of such correlating data that scientists are willing the call conclusive verses probable.

oy

Yes, they are shown to have a correlation. A very strong correlation. A ridiculously strong correlation. This correlation remains strong after taking into account all other sources of radiative forcing. The evidence of correlation is there. The published reports are there. Hell, half the damn IPCC report is all about that frakking correlation and you keep claiming there is none. Read the thing.

The solar evidence has been considered. Multiple times. It has been ruled out as a significant cause.

 

[Redworm]

Do you really think that Time just pulled the Ice Age article out of their hind end and stuck it on their front page without SOME kind of studies?

Yeah but without looking deeper into their source you have no idea what the study actually says. The language used in can be very important in conveying the specific message and saying "we found some evidence suggesting that..." is a far cry from saying "we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that..."

This happens when the media reports on guns and it sure as **** happens when they report on science.

I think I get more out of my life practicing my 2nd Amendment rights compared to spending hours on end reading and studying reports that MIGHT concur the earth actually warmed up ONE degree in the past ONE HUNDRED YEARS....

I've spend more time at the range in a single weekend than it took me to read the IPCC report. It's a couple hours out of your life. Is that so much to ask considering it's an issue that's affecting the entire planet, not just your own life?

 

[Redworm]

So do any of y'all GW warning folks actually do anything of significances to try to reduce your C02 and other greenhouse emmissions footprint? Are you operating your computer via solar or wind accumulated energy? Do you drive 'green' cars. Do you avoid flying in aircraft, especially jets? Have you insulated your home like a cave?

I see from posts above and elsewhere that many of you who are arguing how GW is real apparently are so concerned with it that you haven't given up your greenhouse gas belching vehicles such as SUV and pickup trucks and have commented on how you like certain luxuries, but these come with a pretty high greenhouse gas price tag.

It is hard to believe that y'all are so darned concerned with the alledged problem and yet are not doing squat to rectify it.

Welp, as I've mentioned, I try to live a clean lifestyle but I don't bother with things that will have no impact on the overall issue. If I sell my truck and buy a Prius I'll be doing more damage to the environment then if I simply keep driving my truck as needed. It's not going to the wrecker, someone's gonna buy it and drive it (although crushing a half ton pickup probably uses quite a bit of energy when you factor in the transportation and the machines that are used to actually do the job) and the Prius/Insight/<insert favorite "green" vehicle here> still requires a lot of fossil fuel energy in its construction and in some cases the batteries used for hybrids are pretty bad themselves.

I would like to have a solar powered house some time in the future but I have to wait until my service is up before I can decide where I'm going to build this home. But while my myriad of computers does jack up the power bill by a few bucks it's not really going to make any difference if I shut them down.

See, the average person cannot make a difference in this. First of all, we don't live in the heaviest polluting country (though we're pretty close). Second, while one of the biggest source of CO2 is transportation the changes in all of our habits won't make a damn bit of difference if the new cars on the road are barely cleaner than the ones currently. What many of the hippies tend to forget is that catalytic converter technology and other emissions magic haven't moved as fast as they could over the past couple of decades. The simple fact is that the manufacturers have it way too easy.

Then there's the commercial trucking industry. Oh, the airline industry, can't forget that. But if all of us simply changed our ways and stopped flying or gave up our cars it would have far more negative outcomes than positive.

No, the key is to speed up development of cleaner electricity-producing energy. Invest more money into nuclear and geothermal energy. Invest more money into cleaner cars. The best way to do that is to have a prosperous society in the first place; we can't make these crucial changes if we're broke (and while I do believe the free market is the best way to make that it happen it's pretty much nullified when our government decides to blow hundreds of billions of dollars on crap we don't need, from wars on nouns to universal health care).

But even then it's only going to matter if we spread that technology around. We can't simply clean up our act and expect a bubble of stable climate to surround America. Like it or not we're all in this together. The Frenchies and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and the Pakistanis and the Canadians and everyone else. We're all going to feel the squeeze if things get bad because of climate change so this is one of those issues where the "America first" crown needs to stfu. Everything we do in regards to pollution needs to be with consideration to the global scale. Improve our "carbon footprint" (yeah, I hate that term too) first, absolutely, but ensure that the same technology will be shared across the world.

What am I doing? I'm trying to educate people.

 

[JaserST4]

Hey Red, aren't you using up your fair share of energy posting this stuff? I have a small footprint myself and could sell you some of my carbon credits if you want?

 

[Redworm]

They call this consensus?

http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...1-5c755457a8af

20? C'mon, he can do better than that.

And to say that they "question" the report is not to say that they flat out deny it's conclusion. They can questions aspects of it, they can question some of the data, they can question some of the conclusions drawn but that article is giving the impression that everyone this guy is referring to flat out denies the overall statement.

Again, the Oregon Petition is a load of crap. It was flat out dishonest and deceptive in its attempt to trick people into signing. Passing itself off as a legitimate published report by getting a former head of the NAS to write the cover letter - and intentionally making it look like a reviewed article - it contained plenty of inaccurate and outdated information. Most importantly, the entire thing was written nearly a decade before the 4th assessment report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#References

Most of those links point to individual statements made by a couple dozen of the top scientific institutions in the world.

So yes, there is a consensus.