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.
richardscourtney says:
What a bizarre statement! You don’t think that public policy needs to use science in order to make wise decisions?!? That would certainly explain a lot!
Greg House says:
April 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm
I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no scientific consensus on the “man made global warming”. Actually I can prove that the opposite is true: the vast majority of the relevant scientists OPPOSE that idea. ….Adding those who did answer NO, we have a like 70% opposition to the notion of “man made global warming”.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Quick! Somebody tell that “bossy blond”!
Eric Adler says:
April 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm
This blogpost by Tim Ball is a bunch of nonsense. Here is why: ………
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If everybody is tearing everybody’s arguements apart yet some still claim a “consensus” then the one thing that is clear is Consensus Argument Proves Climate Science Is Political.
Eric Adler says:
April 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm
4. Yet, strangely, no one has yet been able to demonstrate that adding CO2 to a parcel of air has actually increased the test parcel’s temperature. Strange indeed, since CO2 is such a powerful gas…
PeterGeorge says:
April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
Forget the climate debate for a moment. If there were a 50% chance that the world would be destroyed if we didn’t act quickly on some plausible, but un-settled scientific hypothesis, and if it would only cost a little to act and avoid the risk, would it be reasonable to reject action on the grounds that the science is un-settled? If 70-80% of scientists agreed that the hypothesis was probably correct, would it really be reasonable to argue that the “consensus argument” is not scientifically valid and so reject action?
This postulation, PeterGeorge, would not be advanced if the Climate debate was on the up-and-up. Once you ‘forget’ the climate debate, there is no longer “some plausible, but un-settled scientific hypothesis” lurking around to cause policy makers to “act now, because if we are wrong it’s better than not acting if we are right”. This is plain good old disaster scenario reasoning: something MIGHT happen….it sounds plausibly possible, so we best fix it”. That’s sort of like preventative maintenance run amok. Changing the oil in a new car every day because a bit of diamond dust MIGHT get through the air filter and score a bearing. So, quite frankly, you should remember the climate debate, and the fact that this incredible appeal to consensus is an effort to stifle debate and silence dissent. As Michael Crichton once said, it’s the “first refuge of scoundrels”, and your damp straw argument might spontaneously combust. The argument has been advanced time and time again, and really it is not an argument at all, because it attempts to replace something shaky (at best) with something even shakier…with only a 50% chance!
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“Information obtained by science may be used in many ways for a variety of purposes (as any engineer can explain to you). But there is no such thing as “[a distinct for of] science used to inform public policy”.
Quite so. Politics and science make strange bedfellows.
“Jeff B. says:
April 30, 2012 at 11:45 am
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.”
I know plenty of republicans that were wetting in their pants anytime the terror alert was “raised”. Many have fallen for that manipulative garbage.
Morano really must stop giving measurements in Manhattans.
Richardscourtney: “Therefore, consensus does not play any part in science.”
As I said, in a complex society consensus is desirable and often necessary when science has implications for public policy.
An example is vaccination, where it is important that policy makers and practitioners can operate from an agreed position on the science and technology that support public vaccination programmes.
Equally as important is that people involved in public health programmes of this sort are on the same page in regard to the science, in order not to cause confusion among the public, which can undermine such important measures.
So the adoption of a consensus can play an important part in the interface between science and the wider society.
joeldshore:
Each of your posts on this thread demonstrates your lack of ability at reading comprehension. I bother to address one of them (for illustration) because it is directly addressed at me.
At April 30, 2012 at 6:37 pm you quote my having said;
“Information obtained by science may be used in many ways for a variety of purposes (as any engineer can explain to you). But there is no such thing as “science used to inform public policy”.”
And you respond by saying;
“What a bizarre statement! You don’t think that public policy needs to use science in order to make wise decisions?!? That would certainly explain a lot!”
Let me try to spell it out for you in terms so simple that even you may be capable of understanding it.
1.
Every rational person thinks public policy needs to use the best available information in attempt to make wise decisions.
2.
Science exists to obtain the nearest possible understanding of truth and,
3.
therefore, science provides information.
4.
Point 1 indicates that wise formulation of public policy needs to use information from many sources including information provided by science.
5.
Forcing science to support public policy distorts science (see my above post at April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm for explanation of how and why).
6.
However, science can be directed (e.g. by funding) to seek particular objectives.
Indeed, almost all science is conducted outside of the academic sphere (mostly by industry) and is directed at specific goals (e.g. to discover sufficient knowledge of certain materials that they can be constructed with defined properties) so they can be put to a specific application (e.g. manufacture of Dorset Armour, or plastic bottles, or microchips, or etc.).
7.
But the science which is funded to find some specific knowledge is conducted purely to obtain the true information (i.e. the knowledge).
8.
Technologists, engineers, politicians and/or others may choose to use knowledge (obtained e.g. by science) for their own purposes,
9.
But science which attempts to obtain specific information is distorted when the scientists allow their work to be affected by the motive for funding their work.
10.
Industry has learned Point 9 the hard way (bridges fall down when scientists think they are engineers)
11.
so industry makes clear distinctions between science (i.e. research: R), application of science (i.e. development: D), and proof of the application (i.e. demonstration) and industry conducts R,D&D.
12.
Politicians have also learned Point 9, so they deliberately corrupt science to obtain distorted information (that ‘looks like’ scientific information) which they can – and do – use to further their objectives.
13.
Some people with scientific qualifications are willing servants of the politicians who practice deliberate corruption of science (these people with scientific qualifications are pseudoscientists).
Richard
“I have a first class honours degree in Arts (Asian Studies) and Law. I’ve spent a bunch of time studying and working in the United States, including trudging through snow for the Obama campaign in the New Hampshire Primary. ”
From Anna Rose’s public entry at linkedin.
I will say one thing in defense of Ms. Rose. It appears she had no idea who she would be meeting, but Marc probably new. So he could do some opposition research prior to the meeting and have some specifics on Ms. Rose, where all she could drum up is ‘He Lies”. Her education is in the law, not science, so she reverted to what she new best. Just keep quite on specifics and only make generalizations. It seems like her entire courtroom tactic would be “Your Honor, he is guilty of lying and he has to prove that he is not, I rest my case”.
If she were actually confident in her views, she should be able to hold her own with Marc. She is not just a random person on the street, she puts herself out there representing the AGW view, she should be able to defend herself in a situation like this.
Brendan H:
Your post addressed to me at May 1, 2012 at 12:21 am demonstrates that you still fail to understand anything about this subject.
It says;
“As I said, in a complex society consensus is desirable and often necessary when science has implications for public policy.
An example is vaccination, where it is important that policy makers and practitioners can operate from an agreed position on the science and technology that support public vaccination programmes.” etc.
NO! The needed consensus is a political decision which needs to be made by those setting the policy because if they cannot agree what should be done then they cannot do it. And they draw information from many sources – including science – to aid them in forming their consensus.
Consensus damages science for the reasons I explained to you in this thread at April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm. Simply, consensus is a denial of science and it is NOT a part of science.
I suggest that you read my post at May 1, 2012 at 1:23 am. It spells out the matter for joeldshore but may help your lack of understanding, too.
Richard
Brian, there is a clear conflict between two of your statements.
“It’s only a matter of time before Anna will have to grow up.”
And
“And that’s why they prefer true believing sycophants like Anna to those who are willing to question.”
The first statement is unlikely to ever happen because of the truth of the second. This is not a scientific debate, it is a theological one. The response of true believers to anything contradicting their faith is not thoughtfulness but a determnation to clamp down on and eliminate any heretical notions which contradict dogma.
Case in point. Antinuclearism is dogma among climate change advocates, notably organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF. James Lovelock indicated his support for nuclear power because of the perceived need to reduce CO2 emissions. The result of such heresy was a torrent of abuse from the Greens, virtually none of which were willing to consider the supposed merits of his argument.
In this fundamentally religious debate it’s necessary to consider the central belief of the opposition. For the Greens who are the public advocates of climate change, all industrial development and economic growth is fundamentally evil. They want human civilization to be less significant than it is now. They want diminished human capacity, not greater. This is nihilism, and you can’t debate it. You can only oppose it.
And make no mistake. Throughout history, religious “debates” are only resolved in one fashion. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, there’s no neutrality between the fireman and the fire.
Why we are not able to reach consensus on climate change?
This is the end of our ignorance.
The human stupidity is taking place.
Most human neglect is going on.
We’re passing the renaissance of climate change.
Lovelock aftermathو a serious incident:
The only important prerequisite for being a scientist in the field of climate change:
* I swear to be truthful.
Six important condition for being a scientist in the field of climate change:
1. I confess that I am a complete idiot
2. I confess that I am a complete ignorant
3. I admit I know nothing
4. I admit my remarks is always imperfect
5. I confess that I never want to mislead or deceive anyone, I’m not going to do
6. I admit I’m not tied to any financial firm
Richardscourtney: “The needed consensus is a political decision which needs to be made by those setting the policy because if they cannot agree what should be done then they cannot do it. And they draw information from many sources – including science – to aid them in forming their consensus.”
I think we’re in splitting hairs territory here. Of course public policy draws from other sources of information. And in the broadest sense the consensus decision is a political one. But that consensus also requires an agreed position by those presenting the information that is being used to inform the public policy.
Even if public policy makers were to require a dissenting view (or views) on a scientific matter, those views would themselves require some sort of consensus, otherwise you end up with a cacophony of information without the ability to distinguish the good from the bad.
So there has to be some filtering by scientists on the worth of the information to be presented about a scientific matter, since they and not politicians are the ones who are qualified to make those judgements.
Brendan H:
In response to my repeatedly taking the trouble to explain the matter to you, at May 1, 2012 at 11:45 am you say;
“I think we’re in splitting hairs territory here. Of course public policy draws from other sources of information. And in the broadest sense the consensus decision is a political one. But that consensus also requires an agreed position by those presenting the information that is being used to inform the public policy.”
Bollocks!
The best information is ALL the information including all disagreements and the reasons for those disagreements.
An “agreed position by those presenting the information” is PARTIAL information (I wonder if you ever heard about WMD in Iraq).
I have tried to explain the matter to you (repeatedly) but I have clearly failed. It seems you are wilfully pretending you cannot understand as an attempt to justify pseudoscience.
Richard
Jason says:
April 30, 2012 at 10:55 am
“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.”
________________________
“Consensus” is not a bad idea:
2 by 2 equals 4, is a consensus,
We usually sleep at nights, is a consensus,
Fascism is bad, is a consensus,
Contributing to global warming is not a good idea, is a consensus,
and many more…
BIGTIX says:
May 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Jason says:
April 30, 2012 at 10:55 am
“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.”
________________________
“Consensus” is not a bad idea:
2 by 2 equals 4, is a consensus,
We usually sleep at nights, is a consensus,
Fascism is bad, is a consensus,
Contributing to global warming is not a good idea, is a consensus,
and many more…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 X 2 = 4 is true whether or not there is a consensus. To say or imply it is true just because there is a consensus is the fallacy.
“It was used to support official science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…”
— Since the IPCC is itself a political body and not a scientific body, I would say that “It was used to support the official POSITION of the IPCC” (not the “science”).
Richardscourtney: “Bollocks! The best information is ALL the information including all disagreements and the reasons for those disagreements.”
Except that there’s lot of stuff out there that some people consider to be information but others consider to be bollocks.
In effect, you are expecting public policy makers and decision-makers to be as expert in the subject as the experts. Otherwise, how are the non-experts to sort the wheat from the chaff?
The experts should by all means make clear their uncertainties and areas where they lack knowledge. But experts are consulted because they can provide a view on a subject that is more informed than the non-expert view.
That in turn requires some degree of consensus over what is known, what is not so well known, and the uncertainties.
Brendan H:
I am answering your post at May 2, 2012 at 12:05 am solely so others can see I have not avoided it.
This will be my final response to your nonsense so you have the opportunity of the final word.
Your post asserts to me;
“Except that there’s lot of stuff out there that some people consider to be information but others consider to be bollocks.
In effect, you are expecting public policy makers and decision-makers to be as expert in the subject as the experts. Otherwise, how are the non-experts to sort the wheat from the chaff?”
I answer as follows.
I assume you think some of what you write on WUWT is “information”. Others can assess what you write for themselves, and they do not need to be “experts” for some of them to conclude it is “bollocks”.
You are claiming that those who share your views should be given the power to prevent other views being considered by policy-makers. There is a word for that; Lysenkoism.
And, NO, I am NOT wanting “decision-makers to be as expert in the subject as the experts”.
I am expecting decision-makers to evaluate information of all kinds (e.g. scientific, economic, logistic, sociological, etc.) and then to decide on the basis of their evaluation.
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE ELECTED TO DO.
You are claiming a self-determined elite should be given the power to allow only their view to be considered by the decision-makers. There is a word for that, too; fascism.
I believe in democracy.
You – in common with several others who contribute to WUWT threads – are arguing for facism.
Importantly, you are claiming that the practice of science should be destroyed as a method to implement your facism.
What you are claiming is opposed by everybody (including me) who supports the benefits obtained at the enlightenment. We are united in that opposition although we include people of every political, religious and philosophical view.
Richard
Richard,
If what we are describing is fascism, it is “fascism” that has been successfully implemented in the U.S. and I presume in nearly all civilized Western societies. The U.S. government set up the National Academy of Science precisely to provide the sort of scientific information to policymakers that we are discussing. I would assume that the Royal Society in Britain probably has this as at least one component of its mission too.
And, I doubt that you would oppose it in all contexts. Imagine the following: Let’s say that your coal industry (and the power industry in general) were being threatened by politicians who were trotting out their pet scientists to support the position that the EMF from power lines was causing all sorts of ills and that expensive measures had to be taken to protect the public from this, while scientific societies like the Royal Society and the NAS were weighing in with consensus reports that said that such EMF causes no detectable harm. I doubt in this case you would be arguing that consensus science is fascism and we ought to be supporting those politicians who find scientific support from their few “pet scientists” who believe contrary to the consensus.
Look what has really happened is this: You are the losers of a scientific argument so you want the politicians to step in and adjudicate the science more to your liking. That has nothing to do with enlightenment…It has to do with taking us back to the Dark Ages.
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm
You are absolutely correct – Science and Politics cannot be undertaken at the same time. M. Mann is clearly guilty of trying to do both, as are others in Climate Science. If as a scientist you become so convinced by some line of scientific reasoning that public policy must change, you have two choices:
1. Trust elected politicians to evaluate your evidence and so create the policy you so crave.
2. Cease being a scientist and run for political office.
The general scientific illiteracy of those involved in public science is worrying and as I have said before, the contamination of science by self- and political-interest is potentially disastrous.