Guest post by Tom Harris
Besides the obvious bias we have come to expect from most main stream media coverage of climate change, “Climate of Doubt“, aired Tuesday night on PBS’s Frontline, committed one serious mistake that can not be left unaddressed.
Frontline repeatedly implied that there is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that our CO2 emissions are driving us to a global climate catastrophe. They cited 97% as the fraction of the climate science community who agreed with climate alarmism.
That number is easily dismissed. It comes from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Strangely, the researchers chose to eliminate almost all the scientists from the survey and so ended up with only 77 people, 75 of whom, or 97%, thought humans contributed to climate change.
Besides the fact that, with tens of thousands of climate scientists in the world, 77 is a trivial sample size, the survey coordinators did not ask respondents how much humans had contributed to climate change. The poll is therefore meaningless.
In reality, no one knows, or even currently can know, what the “consensus” is in the world climate science community. This is because there has never been a meaningful, comprehensive worldwide poll about the topic among the thousands of scientists who specialize in the many relevant disciplines.
Scientific theories are never proven by a show of hands, of course. Otherwise, the Earth would still be considered flat and space travel impossible. It is indeed those who go against the flow—independent, original thinkers –who are usually responsible for our most meaningful advances in science.
But, most reporters, politicians and the public understand little of the scientific method and even less about the exceptionally complex field of climate change science. Consequently, they often look for an indication of ‘consensus’ when trying to decide which science should form the basis of important public policies decisions. Distasteful though this is to pure scientists, it is a reality we need to recognize and it is therefore important to try to decide whether a reliable determination of ‘consensus’ has been made about the causes of climate change.
First, it is important to realize that, of the prominent national and international science bodies that have issued official statements that are in support of the CO2/climate crisis hypothesis, none released results that show a majority of their members agreeing with the assertion.
For example, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) and a leading Canadian energy expert, “Archie” Robinson of Deep River, Ontario, explains what happened with a Royal Society (the world’s oldest scientific organisation) climate initiative supporting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report:
“the president of the Royal Society of London … drafted a resolution in favour and circulated it to other academies of science inviting co-signing. … The president of the RSC, not a member of the [RSC’s] Academy of Science, received the invitation. He considered it consistent with the position of the great majority of scientists, as repeatedly but erroneously claimed by Kyoto proponents, and so signed it. The resolution was not referred to the Academy of Science for comment, not even to its council or president.”
A similar episode happened in the United States and Russia concerning the Royal Society effort and a survey of pronouncements from other science bodies reveals that they are usually just the opinions of the groups’ executives or committees specifically appointed by the executive. The rank and file scientist members are rarely consulted at all.
But what about the supposedly authoritarian United Nations IPCC report that constitutes the foundation of most official climate concerns today? Media and politicians tell us that 2,500 official “expert reviewers” who worked with the UN body on its most recent (2007, the fourth) “Assessment Report” (called “AR4”) agreed with its conclusions. Perhaps most importantly, in Chapter 9 of the IPCC Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”, reporting on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’) appears the following assertion: “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
Determining how many of the “2500 scientists” are known to actually agree with this statement is difficult, but we do know how many commented on anything in Chapter 9. Sixty-two is the number (see this analysis). The vast majority of the expert reviewers are not known to have examined this or related statements. Instead they would have focused on a page or two in the AR4 report that most related to their specialties, usually having little or nothing to do with greenhouse gases (CO2 or otherwise). And, of those sixty-two experts who did comment this chapter, the vast majority were not independent or impartial since most were employees of governments that had already decided before the report was written (indeed, as MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a past IPCC lead author, explains, before much of the research had even begun) that human CO2 emissions are driving us to climate catastrophe.
When one eliminates reviewers with clear vested interest, we end up with a grand total of “just seven who may have been independent and impartial”, according to Australian climate data analyst, John McLean (see his report). And, two of those are known to vehemently disagree with the statement. Prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider Dr. Mike Hulme even admits that “only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies”, not thousands as is commonly asserted by the IPCC and others, “reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” (p. 10, 11 of Hulme’s April 12, 2010 paper in “Progress in Physical Geography” at http://tinyurl.com/2b3cq3r). It is travesty that the UN permits this misunderstanding to continue uncorrected.
To meaningfully assert that there is a consensus in any field, we need to actually have convincing evidence. And the best way to gather this evidence is to conduct unbiased, comprehensive worldwide polls. Since this has never been done in the vast community of scientists who research the causes of global climate change, we simply do not know what, if any, consensus exists among these experts. Lindzen concludes: “there is no [known] consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.” Frontline did a disservice to the public telling them otherwise.
______________________________________
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition – http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ and an advisor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Buried somewhere in all my notes, are 3-4 other surveys someone shoved in my face, which also claimed a 97% rate.
While the above-mentioned survey has been debunked, I would love to know if anyone has dissected the other surveys, as well?
“Authoritarian” should be “authoritative” in the statement about IPCC. It may also be “authoritarian” in the way it suppresses dissent and coerces scientists to adopt its message, but the context here requires “authoritative.”
Smoking Frog says:
October 24, 2012 at 12:11 am
But what about the supposedly authoritarian United Nations IPCC report that constitutes the foundation of most official climate concerns today?
I think that should be “authoritative.” This is a pretty bad error!
I noticed that as well, but thought it was understandable Freudian slip.
Smoking Frog says:
October 24, 2012 at 12:11 am
>>
But what about the supposedly authoritarian United Nations IPCC report that constitutes the foundation of most official climate concerns today?
>>
I think that should be “authoritative.” This is a pretty bad error!
Well that all depends on whether he intended the adjective to apply to the UN, the UN’s IPCC, or the report.
Their authoritarian stance is authoritative.
There! Now, class, please discuss the rest of the story.
😉
Where were all the scientists who could have posed real questions that remain unanswered. Why didnt they interview Curry, Spencer, Lindzen, Dyson, Houston and Dean, Ball, Pielke, Svenmark and I am sure dozens of other reputable scientists who have enough sense to say there are still serious questions about the proportionality between AGW and natural variability. They did interview Singer but did not allow him to explain the basis for his skepticism. But why should we be surprised.
If you were a Republican congressman asked, by National Journal reporter Coral Davenport, a question that amounted to: “Do you think that climate change is causing the earth’s climate to change?”, would you think, like the PBS correspondent John Hockenberry, that the question was “straightforward”? Or would you detect a circular reasoning ambush, and hurry away without answering?
And about that contemptible “going down the up elevator” argument: Get the GISS annual global temperature anomaly data for the past century or so and look at the chart of the 17-year centred averages. Do you see an uninterrupted upward trend- or do you see distinct linear segmentation and a period of about 30 years with no warming trend?
Frontline did a piece a couple of years ago called “Flying Cheaper” which prompted an investigation that I was involved in. Their accusations were completely baseless and it was obvious that they were after a story regardless of the facts. Most of their information came from an anonymous source who was interviewed at a little dive bar down the street. It was obvious to anyone with even a bit of knowledge that neither the reporter nor the source knew what they were talking about. Frontline has zero credibility and even less scruples.
Frontline are accepting comments on their Facebook page whether or not it will do any good.
http://www.facebook.com/frontline
Myown modest contribution as follows:
“It comes from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Strangely, the researchers chose to eliminate almost all the scientists from the survey and so ended up with only 77 people, 75 of whom, or 97%, thought humans contributed to climate change.”
I thought everyone knew by now that you can’t just use data. To get a valid result it requires adjustments, which are made based on computer models. The models said the input from those other 10,180 surveyed scientists was invalid. And those models are made by absolutely the smartest people that ever lived so who are we to question?
George V.
The 97% figure is very reminiscent of the outcome of most of the infrequent elections held in Soviet controlled communist countries. Perhaps it was a figure in their minds at the time they arranged the outcome of their ‘poll’.
it appears to me that there is still a lot of uncertainty regarding whether climate change is being caused by natural cycles or human activity. the article above seems to rely very heavily on how many people are on a side and taking a “majority rules” approach to the subject, i am new to climate change science and keeping track of what scientists are getting up to but i know science does not work in this manner, a lot of people agreeing on something does not make it right. i myself still feel i require a lot more information before i can be convinced on the matter of weather we are responsible for climate change or not.
Worst Frontline show ever.
So 97% of some number of some number believe in some fake predictions. The show was just a hissy-fit about the fact that the political consensus in the US now knows the public does not believe the fact predictions anymore (and only a few ever did).
If the 97% spent more time on proving the case or fixing the predictions, there would no need for a hissy-fit now.
The problem is the 97% were the ones who took their argument to the political level. Now it has bit them back and all they have left is a hissy-fit and fake predictions.
I was only able to watch the first 45 minutes of the program but was both appalled and encouraged by it. Appalled by the obvious bias, intellectual weakness, and lack of original thought throughout the piece. – pretty much what I was expecting from Frontline, and clearly timed to influence the US elections. On the other hand I was also quite heartened by the obvious bias, pathetically weak arguments, and lack of original thought. The most striking feature of the program to me was the failure to even attempt to argue quantitatively that AGW poses a threat, or that policies proposed to mitigate it would be beneficial or cost effective. The only numbers I recall from the entire show were the 97% of “climate scientists believe” that has been thoroughly discredited above and elsewhere, and prediction of a 39 inch rise in sea level – presumably because a 1m rise would not have sounded scary enough.
The rest of the program was nothing but appeal to authority, ad hom attack on skeptics, and emotional appeal. Moreover, the appeal is not likely to play very well, e.g.,
— Congressman lost his job for supporting a dumb policy? Sorry, folks are hoping for more of that actually.
— “I’m a Climate Scientist, you can trust me because I go to church.” Sorry, novel argument, but I don’t think so.
— Climate scientist resolutely standing firm in the face of FOIA requests – gripping stuff I know, but not likely to resonate with the public.
This approach only makes sense if the factual arguments are weak.
I thought the two key takeaways were 1) there is in fact doubt regarding both the magnitude of AGW and appropriate responses to it, and 2) skeptics have successfully shaped policy using many of the same methods (studies, conferences, policy organizations, political activism, etc.) used to shape most other policy.
I fail to see how broader recognition of these facts will help “the cause”.
The University of Chicago Study is most quoted by those who disagree with climate change as the basis for the 98% statement. However, the real truth in the consensus on climate change was published by the NAS. The research that analysed those who publish pear reviewed studies states that 97-98% of climate researchers believe that climate change is real and human caused. The study may be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/pdf/pnas.201003187.pdf
Climate change is real and is already impacting human life both here and around the world!
“To meaningfully assert that there is a consensus in any field, we need to actually have convincing evidence. And the best way to gather this evidence is to conduct unbiased, comprehensive worldwide polls.”
If they rise to this clear challenge, I predict we will see one of the most biased polls ever conducted.
Here’s why…
The sun drives multidecadal climate by modulating equator-pole gradients ( http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png ) and climate is destabilizing the orientation of the magnetic field by moving and changing the state of mass (starting with surface water but not stopping there): http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png + http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png = http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif (slow animation of preceding pair). Abused geophysical modeling assumptions based on Halley (1692) (supported by not so much as a single observation) need to be corrected. There’s climate signal in geomagnetic indices that isn’t supposed to be there. By method of construction the indices are fundamentally flawed unless they are redefined to reflect what they actually measure instead of what they are supposed to measure in theory. Excessive reliance on unsuitable quantitative methods (like using a hammer to drive a screw) is part of the reason this simplicity was overlooked. The modeling community may be reluctant to give up a 3-century-old cherished assumption, but given enough rope they’ll hang themselves.
Like the military, the media needs superior navigation & guidance.
Surveys of scientists’ views on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
Mitch Hescox:
re your post at October 24, 2012 at 5:09 am
No! The “real truth” is that you refuse to accept reality and make excuses which fool nobody – except perhaps you – for that refusal.
Richard
Mitch Hescox says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:09 am
The University of Chicago Study is most quoted by those who disagree with climate change as the basis for the 98% statement. However, the real truth in the consensus on climate change was published by the NAS. The research that analysed those who publish pear reviewed studies states that 97-98% of climate researchers believe that climate change is real and human caused. The study may be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901439/pdf/pnas.201003187.pdf
Climate change is real and is already impacting human life both here and around the world!
____________________________
If you can not recognize the very large flaws in the “study” which you cite, then by all means, continue to cite it. Perhaps you will encounter enough flak on your journey that you will reassess your own thinking and be better for it, in the long run. There’s always hope…
Mitch Hescox says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:09 am
> Climate change is real and is already impacting human life both here and around the world!
No doubt! It’s just that CO2 isn’t the main cause. And if http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/ is right, we’re in for several interesting decades as we leave the temperature plateau.
A simple “mental litmus test” would lead any true scientific mind to the obvious conclusion that we don’t yet understand the drivers that affect worldwide climate. Anyone claiming otherwise is blinded by the politicalized science fiction of man made climate change.
Mitch Hescox says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:09 am
“Climate change is real and is already impacting human life both here and around the world!”
You quote the Anderegg paper, which certainly does not indicate what you state, another example of the misrepresentation of science. Anderegg only states : an “agreement with the primary
conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average
global temperature over the second half of the 20th century
Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
I watched the PBS propaganda and Tom Harris captures the issues quite well. They kept referencing the bogus 97%. It appears that PBS does not understand science is not about consensus, that is a political term.
Smoking Frog says:
October 24, 2012 at 12:45 am
because it would not make sense for a person who disagrees with others to change his mind merely because the others outnumber him.
=============
On the contrary, that is why people publicly change their mind. Because bad things can happen when you try and fight against the crowd.
Large numbers of people have “truth” fairly low on their priority list. They are much more concerned with the paycheck to pay the mortgage. The boss says jump, they say how high. The boss says write a report proving black is white, they write the report and go home and tell the spouse their boss is an a-hole.
What they actually believe is nowhere on the report. They know that white is white and black is black, and truth has a cost they are not willing to pay. So they keep their mouth closed, do as they are told, and complain in private. Publicly they are all smiles and on board with the program.
John Kimble. Recent analysis suggests given the current rate of progress with forecasting and unless we give up these numerical forecasting models it is estimated it will take 24,000 years before we have a century forecast as good as the current monthly forecast.