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.
Joel Shore says:
“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…”
As usual, if it were not for psychological projection, Joel Shore would not have anything to say.
Shore is the one who wants government to step in and decide what is, and what is not, science.
The deluded believers in the putative “carbon” threat are the ones who are taking us back to the Dark Ages. CO2 causes no detectable or measurable harm. Therefore, CO2 is HARMLESS. QED
As usual, Shore wants the GOVERNMENT to step in and declare CO2 a ‘threat’, based on NO empirical evidence whatsoever.
The RS and the NAS have morphed into entirely political, anti-science organizations. They now promote 100% pseudo-science. It is the ethical, honest outlets like WUWT, which counter their mendacious propaganda. One day the scales may fall from Joel Shore’s eyes. But don’t count on it.
Gunga Din says:
May 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm
1=1
1+1-1=1
1+(1-1)x(1+1)=1
1+ 1-1+1-1=1
3-1-2=1
3-2=1+1
1=2
You know that this is crazy.
So because of that, we must insist 2 * 2 = 4 (just an example).
Because this equation is a proof that we have consensus on it. We will refer to this argument, because we’re trying to prove an issue. Strong indications are necessary to shorten the debate. The sun is the sun, this is a consensus. For the sun, here we do not need to provide any reason.
Why we are not able to reach consensus on climate change or at least on some parts of the issue?
My interpretation is that there are two opponents in the competition with the same power.
joeldshore:
I considered ignoring your untrue and illogical rant at May 2, 2012 at 6:22 am because it is so self-defeating that a rebuttal is not required.
However, your rant is personally addressed to me and, therefore, my failure to reply could imply to some others that I had run away. Hence, I post this brief note.
I cannot speak for the US NAS, but the UK RS was NOT established to speak to governments, politicians, or anybody else. The fact that its administration has been usurped of recent does not change that. And the Fellows and Associates of the RS have no say of any kind in the public pronouncements of the RS which derive from its Administration. Furthermore, only members of that Administration can change their membership.
Richard Lindzen gives a good account of the usurpation of several national academies which can be downloaded at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762
Lindzen’s paper is an interesting – and a shocking – read. Its synopsis says;
“For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. Such factors as the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs, the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead, and the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations are considered. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.”
And you continue by saying;
“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 …”
Say what!?
The coal industry of which I was a part was closed by politicians for purely political reasons, and that closure was completed in 1995.
Furthermore, spurious pseudoscientific arguments were among the excuses for that deliberately imposed economic loss to the UK.
Throughout that process – and to this day – I have ALWAYS defended science against its replacement by pseudoscience.
Come back to me when you know what you are talking about.
And I quote your final paragraph in full because every statement in it is a lie. It says;
“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.”
Here on planet Earth the skeptics of AGW have won the scientific case outright. The skeptics have demonstrated that everything – yes, everything – predicted by AGW-advocate is wrong.
The AGW-advocates know they have lost the scientific argument so they attempt to prevent anything other than their wrong assertions being presented to decision-makers; n.b. the skeptics are NOT the ones calling for other views to be ignored, you are. Such prevention of consideration of every scientific view but one is Lysenkoism.
And opposing Lysenkoism has EVERYTHING to do with defending the benefits of the Enlightenment. Failure to defend against it would “take us back to the Dark Ages”.
Richard
Richardscourtney: “You are claiming that those who share your views should be given the power to prevent other views being considered by policy-makers.”
My position is that the best current information on any matter should be presented to decision-makers. The “best current information” may or may not be in agreement with my personal views.
The fact is that not all views are equal, and there needs to be some way of sifting the various views that will always be present among groups of people. In some circumstances, such as this blog for instance, the principal decides which views are acceptable.
But when it comes to public policy in a democratic society, the model is shared decision-making, and that inevitably requires some form of consensus, wherever it occurs in the decision-making process. And of course, in a democratic society decision-makers are free to seek the views of their own preferred experts, so we’re not talking about a closed shop here.
The groupthink of the CAGW ‘consensus’ lost its sole advantage in the climate science discourse when it lost its initial capability to block openness in the discourse. Once sufficient openness stated to occur then groupthinkers of the CAGW ‘consensus’ lost their credibility in the discourse.
But the groupthinkers of the CAGW ‘consensus’ cannot understand why they fail even though they understand that they are failing. They may never understand. Mann certainly does not yet understand.
John
BIGTIX:
You might have had a point if you were able to do simple arithmetic.
Your post at May 2, 2012 at 8:06 am says;
“1=1
1+1-1=1
1+(1-1)x(1+1)=1
1+ 1-1+1-1=1
3-1-2=1
3-2=1+1
1=2
You know that this is crazy.
So because of that, we must insist 2 * 2 = 4 (just an example).”
NO! I correct your work as follows.
1=1
1+1-1=1
1+(1-1)x(1+1)=1
1+[(0)x(2)]=1
1+0=1
1=1
So, on the basis of that your post is crazy.
And, the reason there is no consensus on climate change is because people disagree (Simples!)
Richard
Brendan H:
I said I would give you the ‘last word’ so I am doing that. I now only write to point out an agreement between us in your post which has the ‘last word’ at May 2, 2012 at 11:26 am.
You say;
“The fact is that not all views are equal,”
I agree that “not all views are equal” and I am willing to let others judge between our views. Indeed, that is why I have given you the ‘last word’ in our discussion.
Richard
The society repeatedly has listened to bunch of scientific or pseudo scientific reasons of the scientists. To reach to a primary consensus, how long you need the time.
This is just unbelievable that scientists so far, even in the few cases or trivial, have not reached consensus. For example:
1. The planet’s average temperature has increased. Yes or no?
2. Over millions of years ago, the rate of increase / decrease / change the amount of carbon dioxide was 0.0001 ppm per year (if there are complaints about the quantity subject to verification without mentioning the amount will suffice). Yes or No?
3. Fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels within about 200 (or whatever) years ago does not follow the rules of millions of years ago, so that the current growth rate of carbon dioxide is 2 ppm per year. Yes or No?
4. The allowable acceptable amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is: 250 350 450 550 1050 5000 Unlimited ppm. Write it.
5. At what point in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet is in alarm condition. And since then, man is unable to perform any action on the planet and climate change is irreversible. Just write your number.
6. Sun and solar system developments has a direct effect on climate change. Yes or No?
7. Average planetary temperature changes is an important index. This means that we’re still having heat or cold waves in the future, they occur locally. Yes or No?
Here we did not arrive at all the different theories and principles. We abstained from entering into controversial cases.
We tried to identify some common points.
These principles are as common in the agreement. Like 2 * 2 = 4
These common areas may be subject to change.
Materials are those that are written by consensus.
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
BIGTIX:
You might have had a point if you were able to do simple arithmetic.
Your post at May 2, 2012 at 8:06 am says;
“1=1
1+1-1=1
1+(1-1)x(1+1)=1
1+ 1-1+1-1=1
3-1-2=1
3-2=1+1
1=2
You know that this is crazy.
So because of that, we must insist 2 * 2 = 4 (just an example).”
NO! I correct your work as follows.
1=1
1+1-1=1
1+(1-1)x(1+1)=1
1+[(0)x(2)]=1
1+0=1
1=1
So, on the basis of that your post is crazy.
And, the reason there is no consensus on climate change is because people disagree (Simples!)
Richard
===============================
Thank you, Richard. I was going to look up a similar “proof” I saw once that 1=2 where the error was in one of the steps camouflaged dividing by 0. It looked logical until you spotted it and remembered that the laws of math don’t allow dividing by 0. (Kind of like spotting that tree rings aren’t thermometers.)
The people getting others to shout “BUT THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” are doing so for political reasons. (And some of those shouting it need to comb their hair.8-)
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
_________________________
You got it.
This calculation was a trick. I certainly agree with your statements. In this case we have a consensus. I was trying to say “consensus” is not bad.
My intention in this instance refers to the fact that our scientists, despite having numerous scientific common, but they are incapable of expressing it.
I immediately gave you a favorable response. So anachronistic debate did not continue.
We got it quickly. Why?
Here we were both true.
But I believe that is not always that way.
BIGTIX:
At May 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm you say;
“ This is just unbelievable that scientists so far, even in the few cases or trivial, have not reached consensus.”
NO! If they “reached consensus” then they would not be scientists.
Please read my above post at April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm which explains this.
And please remember it is not necessary to make a post in order to learn. Lurking until you want a clarification is a very good alternative.
Richard
Gunga Din says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:49 pm
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
BIGTIX:
You might have had a point if you were able to do simple arithmetic.
Your post at May 2, 2012 at 8:06 am says;
“1=1
_______________________________________
I did exactly what some of the scientists are doing. They are knowingly and deliberately wasting people’s time. I was not going to waste your time. Sorry about it. But I thought this was a useful reference. You forgot the main issue. So while I was successful in misleading you, you were looking to prove a meaningless question.
Extensive discussions is happening in relation to climate change. Here are biased individuals abound.
Gunga Din says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:49 pm
&
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
______________________________
This is a very obvious example of the topics we discussed:
1 = 1
You be the judge. Who is telling the truth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0430/Don-t-believe-the-headlines.-Wind-farms-do-not-cause-global-warming
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm
“NO! If they “reached consensus” then they would not be scientists.”
______________________________________________________
I’m not in a position to teach you. On the contrary, I learn something from you.
I just read your content. I do not miss this opportunity. But before that:
Do you insist you should not reach to an agreement with anyone ? This is a mere prejudice.
Why?
BIGTIX says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm
….. You forgot the main issue……
=============================
OKaaaaay………. So, is the “BUT THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” argument in climate science political or not? Do you think there even IS a consensus? If you think there is, what is it?
BIGTIX:
After I had taken the time to answer you by correcting your (you now say deliberate) mistake, at May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm you stated;
“I did exactly what some of the scientists are doing. They are knowingly and deliberately wasting people’s time. I was not going to waste your time. Sorry about it. But I thought this was a useful reference. You forgot the main issue. So while I was successful in misleading you, you were looking to prove a meaningless question.”
I continued by writing answers to you because I thought there was a possibility has you were acting genuinely.
Your post at May 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm (which claims to be in response to my post at May 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm) has convinced me that ALL your posts are “knowingly and deliberately wasting people’s time” by posing questions that are “meaningless” because you have been given answers to them .
Therefore, I shall not reply to any more of your questions whether or not they are addressed to me.
Richard
Richard, I strongly agree with your comments about consensus, including your valid point regarding the ability of non experts to check for themselves.
For those who did not understand Richard’s message, here are two little illustrations, or analogies.
In simple physics, or mechanics, conservation of energy can indicate whether a particular proposed scheme is possible, with no need to know any of the detail between beginning and end.
The German Enigma encoding machine produced such well scrambled code that it was regarded by many as impossible to crack. But a small number of relevant observations helped greatly with the process of breaking the codes. One of these was that, because of the structure of the code wheels and other connections of the machine, no character entered into it would ever be encoded as itself. That fact enabled the Bletchley Park people and others to eliminate any trial output which interpreted any input character in a scrambled text string as itself.
Just one fault, clearly demonstrated, in logic of or prediction by a theory is sufficient for any non expert to confidently and correctly dismiss that theory. Simple as that.
The Piltdown Man hoax was exposed within a few months by an expert who immediately observed and clearly stated how the fraudster had constructed his “find”, but the hoax persisted for 50 years, resulting in hundreds of papers written with it as a basis and gross misdirection of the science of archaeology.
In “climate science” many clear demonstrations of fault have been demonstrated to policy makers and the public.
Those politicians and other policy makers who continue to claim that they have “climate science” to support their actions have only the false excuse of consensus to use, and they push it hard. No surprise there.
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm
BIGTIX:
“After I had taken the time to answer you by correcting your (you now say deliberate) mistake, at May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm you stated;”
________________________________________
I’m not sorry I wrote the truth:
1=1
1+1-1=1
……….
1=2
I wrote in here:
“You know that this is crazy.”
…….
The interesting thing was that I told you about the wrong issue. You probably get the answers you seek. These calculations gave the best place to argue. And that was the point.
I’m already familiar with your tastes.
I’m not surprised because you’ve said that you can not understand anyone. (No consensus).
You’ll be the loser.
Take your time. I am always at your disposal.
Best wishes
Laurie Williams says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:24 am
“Richard, I strongly agree with your comments about consensus, including your valid point regarding the ability of non experts to check for themselves.”
_______________________________________________________
Experience has shown that before entering into any discussion, you should carefully check all aspects of work.
Science alone is not enough. This issue has been fixed. Philosophy, logic, science, if not together, you will not succeed. For example:
A- I do not know you…
1. So you’re not an expert!
2. You’re the expert!
Which is correct?
How do you rate the expertise of people with a few words?
B- I defend the “consensus” (generally).
The result:
1. I am a politician.
2. I’m not a politician.
3. I’m neither. I am the people.
Upon your arrival, why did you call me a politician or a policy maker?
Please do not angry with me! Like Richard!
* I swear to be truthful.
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.
I started discussion with Richard with 1=1, which can be 1=2! :
Now you tell me about the following links which one is true:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0430/Don-t-believe-the-headlines.-Wind-farms-do-not-cause-global-warming
Gunga Din says:
May 2, 2012 at 7:39 pm
BIGTIX says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm
….. You forgot the main issue……
_______________________________________
For Gunga Din, there is no place better than the heaven. I’m familiar with the name Gunga Din.
Your question was great. I’m glad we got to the point. I try to make it short.
Look, abortion is a matter of religious and political. It goes back to the Medical Sciences. But its size is much broader than a surgery room.
Likewise is the situation in other cases.
Nuclear energy
Nitro glycerin
Oil
Gas
Weapons
Earth and Space
Etc.
I hope there is no question about the definition of “government” for you. You may find more about the history of “Government” and the definitions in Wikipedia.
Surely the best trustee of such affairs is of state.
State supervision over the affairs of a country, is my ultimate goal. Without it, at least I’m not able to live in a mad mad mad world.
Therefore, in general, the results of scientific research are directed to the community, through the state. Surely the government’s role is legislative.
We accept the role of government is the first consensus statement.
The scientists have divided and conflicting theories. They should work forever.
Therefore,
The second is our consensus that scientists do not have the same opinions.
Comes immediately:
The third consensus is that scientists are incapable of choosing their own subscriptions.
Therefore in terms the responsibility of identify and extract common opinion of all scientists, it is legally assigned to others. The government.
Finally,
If your question is that the Climate Science of political.
My answer is yes.
This does not conflict with scientific research. If the issue of climate change is discussed in a humorous newspaper, it also is a political newspaper. Lovelock is a scientist. He has the right to publish his views. So Lovelock is not the problem. Lovelock comments could create quakes of tremendous economic, social and political dimensions. Just like abortion. Heated debates in medical science and genetics and simulation are underway.
Like the issue of climate change.
The fate of the people, is related to this issue.
Richard S Courtney says:
According to this statement on the Royal Society website http://royalsociety.org/about-us/ , one of their priorities is in fact to “provide scientific advice for policy”.
All Lindzen does is provide excuses for those who would prefer to have public policy informed by their own ideological prejudices rather than by science.
Well, I will defer to the expertise of a member of the British coal industry on the subject. However, as of 2009, coal still provided about 28% of Britain’s electricity generation. Whether or not that coal is mainly (or all) imported I do not know, but I imagine that regardless there are people who don’t want to see that number dwindle further.
No, because for AGW “skeptics”, doubt is your product. Of course, you are happy to have all sorts of views present just as long as they lead to the incorrect conclusion that the science is so unsettled that it does not support taking any actions in regard to greenhouse gases.
And, “evolution skeptics” can similarly point out that they are not the ones calling for views to be ignored. After all, they are not arguing for evolution not to be taught in our science classrooms. They just want other views, like intelligent design, to be taught alongside evolution! It is the evolutionists who want to keep certain views out of the science classroom. So, I guess by your logic, evolutionists must also be practicing modern day Lysenkoism.
Laurie Williams says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:24 am
__________________________________
No consensus,
Which one is true?
Which one is the real 1=1?
So what?
“The scientists do not have the same opinions.” You like this. No consensus.
My purpose of discussing with Richard the lion heart:
“Find the fallacy”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/trees-do-8-times-better-in-the-new-york-city-urban-heat-island/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1404
One side says that global warming and increased carbon dioxide, is useful. New York trees are happy.
The other side says that Arizona had negative results. The plants were greener, but then never good in the long run.
The answer might be:
Nothing is sustainable.
There are major variables in the atmosphere. Drought is never a lasting phenomenon. High rainfall years as well.
These symptoms can not be generalized to all parts of the planet.
Therefore,
Both the results are given to the archive with caution.
BIGTIX says:
May 3, 2012 at 11:29 am
………………………………………………………….
I’m guessing that English is your second language?
My question was, “So, is the “BUT THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” argument in climate science political or not?”.
Your answer was a very long “yes”.
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm
BIGTIX:
After I had taken the time to answer you by correcting your (you now say deliberate) mistake, at May 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm you stated;
___________________________________
Drawback is that you think I favor this nonsense 1 = 2. And you found that bug!
This is crazy and I told you about the trick in the very beginning.
What a mess.
Gunga Din says:
May 3, 2012 at 1:22 pm
We are a six-person team, we are from different nationalities. I am Davide from Italy with you.(read my name as you see please) . The other friends are from Canada, Germany, UK , Iran and US.
Our youngest 41 years old.