Guest post by Warren Meyer
Likely you have heard the sound bite that “97% of climate scientists” accept the global warming “consensus”. Which is what gives global warming advocates the confidence to call climate skeptics “deniers,” hoping to evoke a parallel with “Holocaust Deniers,” a case where most of us would agree that a small group are denying a well-accepted reality. So why do these “deniers” stand athwart of the 97%? Is it just politics? Oil money? Perversity? Ignorance?
We are going to cover a lot of ground, but let me start with a hint.
In the early 1980′s I saw Ayn Rand speak at Northeastern University. In the Q&A period afterwards, a woman asked Ms. Rand, “Why don’t you believe in housewives?” And Ms. Rand responded, “I did not know housewives were a matter of belief.” In this snarky way, Ms. Rand was telling the questioner that she had not been given a valid proposition to which she could agree or disagree. What the questioner likely should have asked was, “Do you believe that being a housewife is a morally valid pursuit for a woman.” That would have been an interesting question (and one that Rand wrote about a number of times).
In a similar way, we need to ask ourselves what actual proposition do the 97% of climate scientists agree with. And, we need to understand what it is, exactly, that the deniers are denying. (I personally have fun echoing Ms. Rand’s answer every time someone calls me a climate denier — is the climate really a matter of belief?)
It turns out that the propositions that are “settled” and the propositions to which some like me are skeptical are NOT the same propositions. Understanding that mismatch will help explain a lot of the climate debate.
Full essay here at Forbes (well worth your time, Anthony)
A good, balanced article – the only bit of BS being the 97% figure for all scientists agreeing about ‘global warming’, but that is probably because no one explained how that goofy figure was arrived at.
As for geologists – the guys who really understand historic/ancient climates, the figure would probably be a mirror image 3% – excluding those who work for government, who are told what to think in regards to climate change and lose their jobs if they disagree.
This has been covered before, but I do like the reminder. With “push polling” you can get whatever result you want.
Thinking about the idea that all the observations show warming during the last century, and getting really moving in the post-war period, it occurs to me to ask if the UHI effect really took off after the advent of nuclear power?
The widespread (in the West) installation of nuclear power stations, and competing coal, hydro, and oil stations, must have translated into a significant net increase in human heat production – wouldn’t you think?
And since the non-satellite temperature readings are all clustered around the same (mostly) western industrialised urban areas … well, is it too radical to question the very first proposition, that warming has in fact occurred at all?
Best quote I think I’ve ever heard to summarize such a divided opinion:
At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another; at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues.
Really excellent article — well balanced and reasonable. It lays out almost perfectly the rational skeptical position on CAGW. If anything, it is too nice to “warmists” as it completely leaves out the political subtext of vested interests in the warmist crowd, especially in the IPCC itself which simply wouldn’t exist (and soon will very likely not exist) if it weren’t for a plausible “C” in CAGW with all sorts of strong positive feedbacks.
rgb
A bit of information is missing: how many people were asked the question to which 97% answered one way and 3% the other, and what were their qualifications?
Who says doubling [CO2] causes temperatures to rise by ~1 k? The ‘consensus’ of course, but it has to be wrong. I’m not the originator of this argument but the assumption of 100% direct thermalisation of of quantised intramolecular vibration in asymmetrical molecules to symmetrical molecules is plainly impossible: there is no mechanism; the energy can only be passed to other GHGs in one tranche.
In reality, another excited molecule will emit the same energy photon in a random direction, restoring the Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. So why did Tyndall and the PET bottle experiments measure higher delta T for CO2? Easy to explain: they were at constant volume so because CTE for CO2 is higher than permanent gases, they measure the temperature rise due to compression. Unscrew the PET bottle cap and delta T falls significantly showing it’s from scattered IR thermalised at the bottle walls.
This is but the first of five major scientific mistakes in the IPCC claims. It’s a joke to any professional scientist with sufficient advanced physics willing to piece together how since 1997 this pseudo-science has probably been based on systemic deception.
I was just thinking, if these ultra low temperatures during the winter start occuring more often, we will have to emit more and more co2 while heating ourselves, which in turn wil make the global warming even more severe :))).
Yer right, Anthony. It was well worth the time.
Well done, sir!
Totally devoid of hyperbole, well-reasoned and easy to understand.
I agree – really well-balanced article. And if you follow the links at the end there is a slide pack and/or a video and/or a DVD available as well.
“In a similar way, we need to ask ourselves what actual proposition do the 97% of climate scientists agree with.”
They were asked:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
So I guess then that he ‘deniers’ as you call them were denying that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global.
Thanks, Warren. This sums up exactly where I stand
Warren Meyer also wrote this summary about Mann in another article linked to the one above…
“Postscript: You will notice that I wrote this entire article without once mentioning either the words “hockey stick” or “Climategate.” I have never thought Michael Mann’s hockey stick to be a particularly compelling piece of evidence, even if it were correct. The analysis purports to show a rapid increase in world temperatures after centuries of stability, implying that man is likely the cause of current warming because, on Mann’s chart, recent temperature trends look so unusual. In the world of scientific proof, this is the weakest of circumstantial evidence.
As it turns out, however, there are a myriad of problems great and small with the hockey stick, from cherry-picking data to highly questionable statistical methods, which probably make the results incorrect. Studies that have avoided Mann’s mistakes have all tended to find the same thing – whether looking over a scale of a century, or millennia, or millions of years, climate changes absolutely naturally. Nothing about our current temperatures or CO2 levels is either unusual or unprecedented.
The best evidence that the problems identified with Mann’s analysis are probably real is how hard Mann and a small climate community fought to avoid releasing data and computer code that would allow outsiders to check and replicate their work. The “Climategate” emails include no smoking gun about the science, but do show how far the climate community has strayed from what is considered normal and open scientific process. No science should have to rely on an in-group saying “just trust us,” particularly one with trillions of dollars of public policy decisions on the line.”
Perfect comments for Mann’s book over at Amazon…
How the “97% of all climate scientists” number was arrived at
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
I thought it was well written, but a bit too soft on the warmista. And he uses ‘deny’ a lot – (thought that was now taboo?).
But anyway, I don’t think it is sufficiently simple and well written for the Average Joe (too many long words and sentences, no disrepect intended, but there are many folk who simply will not bother to read slowly, re-read, and then understand stuff, they are too busy trying to earn a crust! – they need quick sound bite type cartoons and graphs!), and it’s far too simplified for those that have followed the CAGW debate, IMHO.
He hits the nail on the head wrt the seemingly ideological/dogmatic stances of the warmists (i.e. always running back to the basic theory, earth is warming stance, and not accepting any real discussion of the implications) – but doesn’t explain that the D…’rs are not really the ones being ideological/dogmatic. Skeptics in science are to be applauded and listened too – and if they get converted (by a new theory), then you are likely on to a winner with ones theory – if they aren’t, your theory is likely full of BS. That’s the way science generally works, and so, IMO, the ideological/dogmatic stance of the theory and it’s ardent suporters, should be exposed as a weakness, especially, as Meyer explains, that it’s largely the subsequent ‘use’ (or rather misuse!) of the theory that is being exploited and that use is the primary part that the skeptics deny.
Warming is a trend that isn’t supported by the data in the linear fashion reflected in their conclusions — ergo their conclusions are Null.
Regarding the “97%” of climate scientists, I understand that the actual numbers were 77 out of 79 climate scientists who had, within the past 5 years, had 50% or more of their publications related to climate science, answered yes to both these questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
However, when we look at the numbers of the polling of these scientists we find they represent 0.75% of all earth scientists (10,257) who were originally sent the questionnaire, and just 2.4% of those who responded (3146).
Further, the 77 were only 24% of all climate scientists who responded (268).
When was the last time you saw a headline saying “97% of 2.4% of all earth scientists agree AGW is real,” or, “When Does 24% = 97%?”
Samuel Clements’ lies, damned lies and statistics should be used as a disclaimer on the reporting of the 97% figure.
It appears global warming has extended the cherry picking season as well…..
Excellent article. I am impressed by the clarity of Meyer’s writing.
A followup article discussing in depth the positive benefits of rising CO2 (plant food) and moderate global warming (longer growing seasons, 20 humans die from cold for every death due to heat, etc.) would be valuable.
Another article discussing the various rents that the CAGW’s seek would also be valuable.
The argument would not exist if there was a technology that could replace coal oil gas and nuclear and by omission Warren forgot to mention that other dirty sordid word “hard cash” who in their right mind would pay Al Gore $120,000 a hit if all he said was “gee folks everythings just fine” as one contributor said last week if you want to know why all the hype then just follow the money.
The claims had to be hysterical John Houghton said “it has got to be dark and catastrophic otherwise no one will take any notice” the greens are to climate change what Bernie Madoff was to ethical behaviour.
I agree with Robert Brown and good for you to post it on Forbes where it will have reach and an immediate benefit!!!
Best,
John from CA
I read the article and found the following
“While some of the talk-show-type skeptics have tried to dispute this greenhouse theory, most of what I call the science-based skeptics do not, and accept a number circa 1C for the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2.”
I, for one, do not accept this number. It can NEVER be measured, so how anyone can claim it is valid I have no idea. It is a hypothetical, and completely meaningless number. It is based on the assumption that it can be estimated by ONLY looking at radiative effects, neglecting conduction, convection and the latent heat of water. The assumption that “the structure of the atmosphere does not change”; i.e. the lapse rate remains constant.After reading that, I did not take too much notice of the rest of the article. Sorry, Anthony, the article is not really worthwhile reading.
Peter Miller says: “…the guys who really understand historic/ancient climates…”
Peter, You should know better ! ALL propositions about the geologic past are based on our understanding of PROXIES. For instance, stratigraphy, examination of fossils in those rock layers, etc are all proxies from which climate inference is made. As is the case in ALL science, our understanding is only as good as those inferences, which can and generally do contain errors.
My overall point is that geologist’s “understanding” is only an approximation of “truth” and no geologist worth his salt would conclude that we really understand everything/anything about ancient climate in more than general terms. No precision to plus or minus 1 degree C, so sorry !
Humans have real perspective issues with timescales in millions of years.
.
John says:
February 9, 2012 at 9:49 am
—
The problem is the word “significant”. It is undefined and hence left up to the reader to define.
In some fields, as little as 5% can be considered “significant”.