UPDATE: I’ve added a video at the end that speaks to the consensus thinking. Marc Morano’s arguments leaves the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s Anna Rose speechless. – Anthony
Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball
Claims of a consensus was an early sign climate science was political. It was used to support official science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a public relations campaign to offset and divert from bad science, inadequate data, and incorrect assumptions. It’s in use again as the science of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis fails and people are not persuaded.
Many scientists were fooled, including James Lovelock, a central figure to environmentalism with his Gaia hypothesis. In 2007 he said,
“Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.”
Recently he revised his view;
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.”
“We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
How could a reputable scientist be so wrong?
Some words have different meanings for the public than for professionals. For example, calling someone a skeptic is considered derogatory, yet it’s a necessity for a scientist. When warming became climate change skeptics became deniers, a nasty ambiguous word. It means you refuse to acknowledge information, but it’s specifically used for a few who deny the holocaust, arguably the most horrendous event in history.
There’s a negative implication to the word consensus. If you’re not part of it you’re out-of-step, stupid, antisocial, or all three. There’s no consensus in science. Even in politics it’s rare to assign a number to a consensus. Apparently to pretend credibility current users say there’s a 97 percent consensus about IPCC climate science.
Numerical measures of the consensus argument appeared early in climate As I recall, approximately 6000 people associated with the IPCC represented the original consensus. That number decreased to 2500 today, but they’re still the consensus according to RealClimate, the web site about which Michael Mann wrote in a 2004 email,
“…the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what the site is about.”
A 16 December 2004 entry asks,
“Is there really “consensus” in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change?”
Evidence used was the now discredited study of Naomi Oreske that claimed of 928 articles selected objectively by a three word google search, 100 percent supported IPCC science.
On 22 December 2004 there’s another RealClimate insight;
We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).
This admits consensus is unnecessary in science, but necessary for climate science “for public presentation” or propaganda.
It’s another circular argument that pervade IPCC science and politics. For example, they hypothesize that CO2 causes temperature increase, program a computer model accordingly, then say the model proves that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. RealClimate says,
“The main points that most would agree on as “the consensus” are:
1.The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2.People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3.If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4.(This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)
I’ve put those four points in rough order of certainty. The last one is in brackets because whilst many would agree, many others (who agree with 1-3) would not, at least without qualification. It’s probably not a part of the core consensus in the way 1-3 are.”
So the consensus is their IPCC Reports.
Here are the facts of the consensus today.
1.The rise of 0.6°C has an error of ±0.2°C or 33 percent – which is scientifically meaningless. Phil Jones a senior member of the IPCC produced the number. The earth is not warming any more.
2.The only evidence people are the cause is in their computer models.
3. Temperature increase precedes CO2 increase in every single record anywhere, except in their computer models.
4.An application of the precautionary principle.
RealClimate said about consensus,
“In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it.”
But climate science of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia was not normal practice: a political consensus was their only hope. As Michael Crichton said,
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Sounds familiar; the science is settled, and the debate is over because there’s a consensus.
=================================================================
Added: This video showing Marc Morano trying to get an answer out of the leader of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s Anna Rose is telling.
@ur momisugly PeterGeorge:
April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
Please give me one good example of enormous damage to the world population, or even people in general, done by an unresolved scientific issue that took generations for scientists to resolve (aside from public-policy driven pseudoscience like eugenics, which is the issue alarmist science most closely resembles). I’m a historian of science and I cannot think of any examples that emanate from within a scientific community.
PeterGeorge says: @ur momisugly 8:59 “Forget the climate debate for a moment. —
. . . if it would only cost a little . . .”
It is highly unlikely you will get away with this juxtaposition on WUWT.
As far as I can see “consensus” in this case meant a dozen climatologists in a team agreed, 3 climatologists not in the team were excluded for not agreeing and 6000 other scientists simply assumed that the dozen climatologists that were the loudest must be right because the UN said they were and then monitored the alleged “impacts” of AGW in nature. This, surely, is the message of the “Climategate” emails.
I confess that I believed in AGW for about ten years. With hindsight, ironically, I must have become convinced of its truth at just about the time the Earth stopped warming.
My belief evaporated quite suddenly in 2006. Why ? Because it suddenly dawned on me that all the proponents of the theory had fallen back on the ‘consensus’ argument.
I’m not a scientist, but I understand enough about science to realise that when people use the argument of consensus, it means they’ve lost the scientific argument. Scientific arguments are based on evidence, and only on evidence. It really is that simple.
When the AGW theory is finally dead and buried, I believe this is the one lesson most people need to take away from it. Whenever someone tries to support a scientific proposition using the word ‘consensus’ – you know you’re being had.
j molloy says:
April 30, 2012 at 8:20 am
If the devil didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent him
And then, to keep him from making mischief, teach him a skill, such as computer modeling.
Oh. Waitaminnit…
joeldshore says:
April 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
Likewise, I think most people here would probably agree that there is a consensus among scientists that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones is of much too low a frequency to cause cancer or other biological harms by any currently-understood process and hence would not support public policy moves of draconian bans on cell phone use for the purpose of preventing biological harm.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about; do you know the difference between frequency and power? All cell phone frequencies are good for cooking brains. The only thing a cell phone lacks for warming up your food is transmitted power.
The interview between Rose and Morano is all well and good but if Marc has been over the top in his criticism of the warmers then young Anna will not drop her guard. Far better to introduce her to Roy Spencer and Jon Cristie.
In service to the notion that climate science is not science about climate anymore rather it is politics about wealth redistribution I propose a news word:
climatscience, pronounced, klahy-mit’-shuhns
1) Political scheme or viewpoint wherein an ulterior objective is achieved by loose suggestions that principle objective is rational when it isn’t in fact.
2) Mass hysteria
Example: The magic show audience was captivated by the pestidigitator’s climatscience and was convinced that the lady was levitated.
Feel free to add further definitions…
UK Met office got it wrong and they want more money for better computers.
BBC News
30 April 2012 Last updated at 17:52
April is the wettest month for 100 years
Aerial video shows Somerset floods
Man dies as floods create havoc
Somerset’s rivers on flood alert
Badminton Horse Trials cancelled
This has been the wettest April in the UK in over a century, with some areas seeing three times their usual average, figures from the Met Office show.
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12
The forecast presented here is for April and the average of the April-May-June period for the United Kingdom as a whole.
This forecast is based on information from observations, several numerical models and expert judgement.
SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole,
and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months.
With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 1971-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).
I never got the impression he was now skeptical. Sounded to that he was only saying that many of his AGW claims were wildly exaggerated.
“but it’s specifically used for a few who deny the holocaust, arguably the most horrendous event in history.”
Oh no! not the ‘holocaust’ again! Can this blog get through more than 3 articles before somebody brings up the ‘holocaust’?
[Reply: When the pejorative “denier” and “denialist” is no longer used to demonize those who simply have a different scientific view, the Holocaust issue will quickly fade away. ~dbs, mod.]
Mike Smith says:
“Even worse, this consensus has been manufactured.”
Provably true. The alarmist “consensus” has repeatedly tried to get enough signatures to surpass the OISM Petition. They have failed miserably, unable to get even one-tenth the OISM number of signatures. Thus, their claims of “consensus” are an outright lie.
Joel Shore says:
“…when there are any sort of public policy considerations or an attempt to summarize the current state of the science, then consensus becomes a useful concept. It’s as simple as that.”
It may be ‘as simple as that’ to the simple-minded. Or it may be a deceptive attempt to manufacture a false consensus that never really existed. In reality, the clique of alarmist scientists is relatively small.
The large preponderance of scientists agree with the OISM Petition, which states:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
That clear and unambiguous statement has been co-signed by more than 31,000 degreed professionals in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. Alarmist petitions have tried, but they do not come remotely close to those numbers. The fact is that most scientists know that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. Which counters the outright lie that “carbon” will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption. There is no empirical evidence whatever that supports that nonsense.
Joel Shore typically nitpicks the OISM Petition, but as is usually the case, Joel Shore is wrong. The alarmist “consensus”, of which Joel Shore is a part, is mendacious propaganda. And as stated above, it is provably false.
I am wondering why there are very little writing comparing current climate changing trend to what happened in Eocene Epoch (56 to 34 million years ago) where – preceded by Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum rapid global warming – the average temperature went as high as 12C above current average temperature in the Arctic, and at least 5C around the equator. Why the comparison important? Because as far as scientist can find, this is one of the greenest time on Earth, with Earth covered by forest from pole to pole. No evidence of decrease of life on lands but actually increase in abundance, of course some species become extinct but more species replace them.
So, maybe global warming is not always a bad thing?
I hate to say this – BUT “consensuses climate change” IS here in popular literature, in newspapers, in blogs, in popular culture, in movies, in television talk shows, it’s everywhere. We’re not going to change that – this IS the publics known fact as presented. I have long ago come to the conclusion the public is stupid – lacking any science knowledge – or even interested in science when it come to climate or global warming. Moreover, the general public would be totally intimidated by the vigorous “science” give and take experienced on these pages. That’s the level of understanding there in the public whether its the TV talking head, the newspaper journalists, or the normal course of information accessed by the general public on a daily basis in their popular culture.
We need to accept that – until we do we’re losing this little war. While we all know Hansen for what he is – to the general public Hansen IS NASA speaking. Case in point – we just had an election here in Alberta, Canada – Danielle Smith (Wildrose) who I voted FOR in their leader’s debate said she believed the debate on Global Warming was NOT settled and we need to keep an open mind on the science itself. She was literally booed off the stage. Then – believe me – she was attacked in every newspaper, every television station across Canada, called a Neanderthal, knuckle dragger, a dumb red neck, and every other vicious name you can imagine for TWO WEEKS on that ONE issue. Many of us fought back using science to prove Danielle’s point – guess who won this argument – hint – its wasn’t actual science.
It was the “consensus science” that won the day.
Consensus Study:
97% of climate scientists agree with the concepts of AGW.
97% of those scientists are on some government funded payroll, somewhere.
97% of governments funding these studies can see some advantages in carbon tax/trading.
97% of politicians don’t care about CO2 or the climate, but do care about opinion polls, making deals to get legislation passed, money, re-election, and money (again).
97% of bureaucrats and elected politicians in the governments seeing the advantages choose to believe in Catastrophic AGW, and direct funding accordingly.
97% of that funding available in climate studies is dependent upon taking a stance aligned with the beliefs of CAGW.
97% of all other scientific articles are only passed on peer review if they contain the one vital paragraph acknowledging that the conclusions are subject to the expected and unexpected effects of CAGW.
(disclaimer: 97% of all statistics are probably made up on the spot).
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
Marc is a very good corporate guy. No doubt. Very Nick Naylor like. Your video reminds me of the scene from this movie:
The guy is a seasoned corporate guy matched up against a naive young woman. I don’t want what we’re supposed to take from that video.
However, No doubt there is politics on both sides of the debate. But many on left seem to view this as a situation where the politics is only coming from one side. Either way, the more politics gets involved, the more the general public losses. If the warming starts again more people will be interested in making money than anything.
I believe Mr. Lovelock is an opportunist and sees the writing on the wall and is leading the charge out of the gate. His next book will be titled “How I was Taken In” available for $34.99.
I have always been amazed at how “consensus” has be so brazenly used as argument, when it has historically (and consistently) lost out to the greatest minds of science, and technological advancement.
The young lady in the video is typical of true believers. They do not believe in their own capacity to understand anything about science. Hence, they are completely vulnerable to anyone with scientific credentials. It is the control of these types of folks that was/is behind the attempts to control peer review and have scientific organizations take supporting positions. The propagandists realize that these types of individuals are theirs for the taking.
You will never change these folks. Instead, we should understand they have no self-confidence. They really should be made to look foolish rather than attempting to convince them with facts. In a sense, that was accomplished by Marc, but only to those of us who already know the facts. A better method would be ask them directly to state the facts themselves. Get others to realize these individuals don’t have a clue. We just need to keep piling on until they get tired of looking like morons and move on to another mission.
Albertalad says: April 30, 2012 at 10:40 am
Very well said.
We like to think people are changing their minds.
I don’t think I’ve personally convinced anyone who did not already have some doubt in their mind.
Those with entrenched beliefs mostly seem to have not looked very hard, and are just going with this ‘consensus’ and the vague idea that ‘freely dumping our waste products in the atmosphere must be a bad thing’.
Those here who have been involved in the decision making processes of ‘big business’ and ‘big government’ will know from harsh experience that decisions get made because they suit someone’s agenda, NOT because it is the correct decision or the right thing to do. (If sometimes the correct decision does get made for the correct reason, please be aware that is an accident and/or a matter of co-incidence).
This battle is far from over, and it is probably unlikely logic will trump entrenched agendas. These people, with all their disparate (and all their mutually beneficial) plans will plough ahead and ‘manufacture’ the ‘support’ for their actions.
I don’t think Lovelock is such a schemer. this is a man who most likely cried tears of joy watching Avatar with its Strong Gaia Hypothesis ending. He is convinced that the earth and all its systems, including the atmosphere and biosphere, is an integral organismic whole in delicate balance. He believes that an infection in one part of the organism affects all other parts. That IS the Gaia Hypothesis.
You guys are letting your previous rancor about this man’s climate pronouncements get in the way and you are looking this gift horse in the mouth. If he has truly changed his mind, that’s a good thing which should not be disparaged and dismissed. If he is the extreme Machiavelle that some of you seem to think he is and this is just a diabolical ploy to sell more books (come on, let’s not appear to be nothing more than universal conspricay theorists here. You know how much credibility THEY have), so waht. Anyone who can waffle that extremely in a politically charged arena has forfeited any credibility and is easy to discredit if they flip flop again.
Be big about this and think how you might respond if it were to turn out (far fetched I know) that we are all wrong and Al Gore were to be correct. I don;t know about you, but I would have to say, “I was wrong, you were right” and hope everyone then acted decently rather than telling me that I am only saying that to get something out of it.
What do you want from this guy? He seems damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t here. I don’t particuarly like his kooky ideas – although I admit Gaia makes about as much sense to me as most organized relegions do, but let’s accept the man as innocent until proven guitly. What are you all going to say one fine day which we all long for when the entire cadre of CAGW alarmists are forced to give up the ghost? “Oh, they’re only saying it because they’re planning a resurgence adn are playing for time.” An admission of error is a bold, personally difficult thing to face. Why throw salt on this guy’s wounds.
Adrian, the recent April in the UK has not been the wettest month for 100 years, it has been the wettest April for 100 years – there’s quite a difference.
All things Leftist and Progressive have done a great job of enlisting people like Anna Rose who are susceptible to emotional conspiracies. No sane person would want to destroy the earth, etc. and this plays in to the emotions of people who will willingly believe whatever the crisis du jour. And generally, those who are motivated by more worthwhile pursuits would never take a job like Anna’s, and the Leftists know this and exploit this for their ends.
Marc is exactly right, Anna Rose will at some point be forced to examine her intellectual conscience. The empirical truths will keep revealing the whole CAGW movement to be a falsehood. It’s only a matter of time before Anna will have to grow up.
But this is very instructive, because the lesson here is that Leftists are not merely guided by good intentions, but by control. And that’s why they prefer true believing sycophants like Anna to those who are willing to question.
Vote wisely.
According to her criteria she wouldn’t even talk to Hanson because he isn’t a “legitimate climate scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.
@ur momisugly Paul — excellent video, thanks for posting.