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.
joeldshore:
Your post at May 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm is yet another demonstration of your reading difficulties, and it adds proof of your nature. It purports to be answering my post at May 2, 2012 at 10:59 am. But it is so ridiculous that I merely point out your errors and ask others compare my post and your response for themselves.
You had asserted that the RS was formed to inform others. I pointed out that your assertion is plain wrong, but the RS Administration has been usurped so the Members of that Administration make proclamations which Fellows and Associations of the RS cannot affect.
I provided a link to Lindzen’s paper which names individuals and details their actions to usurp several science Academies including the RS. I repeat that link to where the full paper can be downloaded; i.e.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762
This peer reviewed and fully-referenced paper has not been challenged although named persons could have (would have?) sued for libel if the paper were wrong.
Your reply is to cite a present-day policy statement from the Administration of the RS and to write;
“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.”
That is so wrong it is risible. Be honest, you didn’t read it, did you?
Furthermore, I object to your offensive and personal twaddle, I especially object to your calling me a liar.
My employment as part of the UK coal industry did end when that industry was closed in 1995 (how could an industry which does not exist employ me?). Of course, and as you say, the UK electricity industry continues to use (now imported) coal, but I have never worked for it.
Apologise, then [snip – let’s maintain the standards here please ~ac]
I wrote;
“The skeptics have demonstrated that everything – yes, everything – predicted by AGW-advocates is wrong.”
That statement is so bold that to disprove it you only needed to cite a single one such prediction which the skeptics have failed to demonstrate is wrong.
And your response says;
“ “
Yup, nothing, zilch, nada. Instead it makes irrelevant waffle about creationism.
Shore, you really are a piece of work.
Richard
ac:
I considered objecting to your moderation of my post at May 4, 2012 at 3:16 am. However, on reflection I think the deletion implies I used stronger words than I did so I am grateful for it.
Joel Shore had written;
“And, I doubt that you would oppose it [i.e. pseudoscience] 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 …”
That was extremely offensive because I did not need to imagine it: as I explained in my reply at May 2, 2012 at 10:59 am,
(a) it was a description of what had happened to trash my career nearly two decades ago (I was the Senior Material Scientist of British Coal – a.k.a. the National Coal Board – based at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment which closed when politicians closed British Coal)
and
(b) it is a matter of record that (as, during and after those events) I DID “oppose” the use of pseudoscience as an excuse for what the politicians did.
Clearly, Shore may have been ignorant of those facts and, therefore, he may not have been aware of the offensive nature of what he had written.
But Skore’s reply to my pointing out (a) and (b), did not apologise. Instead, (at May 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm) Shore made a ridiculous assertion which suggested (a) was not true.
My response (which you snipped) was an attempt to demonstrate my disgust at Shore’s behaviour.
Richard
PS Following the cessation of my coal industry career in 1995, I have obtained income from the consultancy business I established (which mostly provides information for politicians and which I am in process of closing) and I have devoted most of my time to activities for the Methodist Church (I am an Accredited Preacher).
Richard S Courtney says:
(1) It was not peer-reviewed as near as I can tell. The link is to a preprint webserver that anybody can post to. I find no evidence on google scholar that it actually appeared in a peer-reviewed journal either.
(2) “Nobody has sued” is hardly a high standard for accuracy of a paper.
Considering you are manufacturing the claim that I called you a liar, perhaps you ought to be offended by yourself. I didn’t call you a liar. I just pointed to some facts that showed that coal continues to provide a considerable fraction of electricity generation in Britain.
Okay, so I amend my description of you as “a member of the British coal industry” to “a former member of the British coal industry”. Happy now?
You are not are not quoting my entire scenario. While part of the scenario may have happened, in your opinion, to the coal industry in the U.K., the scenario went on to imagine that it was due to concerns of EMF from powerlines, an example of a scientific hypothesis that (as opposed to climate change) has not garnered a scientific consensus.
I think, however, that this whole incident and how you took great offense at my hypothetical scenario (which in certain ways apparently hit too close to home in your view) has been very instructive in helping us to understand your motivations. I had thought that you were motivated at least to some extent in your opinions on climate change by the industry that I thought (incorrectly, apparently) you were involved in. It now seems that you are instead motivated by a personal vindetta brought about by your opinion that the evil environmentalists and whoever-else “trash[ed] your career”. However, unfortunately, that does little to change my opinion of your lack of objectivity.
I said:
I meant to say: “I had thought that you were motivated at least to some extent in your opinions on climate change by the industry that I thought (incorrectly, apparently) you were STILL involved in.”
I.e., you don’t dispute that you were part of the coal industry, just that you are not now and haven’t been for many years.
And, of course, that should be “vendetta” not “vindetta”.
Richard: And, by the way, I might I add that I feel your pain. As a result of a big technological change along with poor corporate management in dealing with that change, plus a severe recession / financial crisis brought on in large measure by an attitude of market fundamentalism that resulted in essentially no regulation of dangerous financial practices, I have gone in the past few years from a well-paying corporate research scientist job (at Kodak) to a teaching job that is about a 60% pay cut from what I was making before (and longer hours!).
Such are the things that life throws at you!
Bigtix says at 3/5/2012 – yes that’s a logical date format, all you American types – 3 of 5 of 2012 🙂 at 7:49:
“Upon your arrival, why did you call me a politician or a policy maker?”
I didn’t.
When you posted that question you were either jesting or simply demonstrating that you either do not read or do not understand points made by others.
I suggest that you again (?) read everything that Richard, I and others have written in this discussion and try to understand all the points made, then, not before, return to the discussion, if you would like to do so.
Laurie Williams says:
May 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Bigtix says at 3/5/2012 – yes that’s a logical date format, all you American types – 3 of 5 of 2012 🙂 at 7:49:
“Upon your arrival, why did you call me a politician or a policy maker?”
I didn’t.
_____________________________________________________________
Laurie, I disagree with some of Richard comments. His comments were not perfect.
Our problem was that Richard did not agree with the consensus in science in principle. Please see this:
– – – –
richardscourtney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm
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.” (A new measure; everybody can be a scientist!).
– – –
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“….Therefore, consensus does not play any part in science..” (Not true!)
AND….
“Of course, an apparent consensus will exist concerning issues in a mature science because most practitioners will agree on the interpretation of the totality of existing evidence. But the conduct of science stops if a true consensus occurs.” (In conflict with above statement)!
AND…
“Politics uses selected evidence (n.b. NOT the totality of evidence) to advocate or to justify policies and/or actions. And consensus is an important objective of politics because it encourages people to accept the desired actions and policies.” (Partially not true).
AND…
“Being a scientist does not preclude a person from also being a politician (e.g. Benjamin Franklin). But a person cannot act simultaneously as a scientist and act as a politician: the two activities are mutually exclusive BECAUSE (Heh! look at the title of this article; is the climate science political – A scientist can think politically)
“(a) Attainment of a consensus prevents the conduct of science
But
(b) Attainment of a consensus is an objective of politics.”
– – – –
It was right here that I said: 2 x 2 = 4. We need certainty in this regard.
This consensus does not stop the progress of science. This will contribute to the progress of the work. Consensus is essential for the evolution of the science. We need a strong foundation for the Advancement of it. Consensus doesn’t belong to the politicians only.
Secondly, I referred to the issue of 1 = 1 which, some scientists for any reason do not tell things honestly. Sometimes they insist that 1 = 2 is correct. Richard did not understand me here. With this example, I tried to say that some scientists are misleading the people. In fact they are a major obstacle to real scientists to reach consensus. The problem is not the politicians only. I wished I had talks with Richard about the “consensus” as the main axis, nor in minutiae theorems.
As you see, I reviewed once again Richard comments. What about you?
Take care