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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly David
Your handle is itself a lie. Telling.
Yes David, it’s a piss-take. Get over it.
ScepticalTom says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm
TimewastingobfuscatingTom is far more accurate.
ScepticalTom says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm
A piss-take? What it shows is dishonesty. Cowardice. Fear.
75 out of 77?? That number is so bogus. You couldn’t get 75 out of 77 people to agree that the Pope is Catholic.
I know reality stings the alarmist crowd, but the fact is that the alarmist side does not have any kind of a consensus that CO2 is a catastrophic problem. And the Michael Manns of this world really don’t want a lot of competition for federal grant dollars. They claim ‘consensus’, with their bogus numbers rather than with real numbers. But there is no ‘consensus’ that believes Mann’s scare stories. And there probably never was.
The true scientific consensus is contained in the OISM Petition language:
There you have it: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That is the true consensus, co-signed by more than 30,000 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s.
That petition has many thousands more co-signers than the alarmist crowd was ever able to round up — they tried, but they failed, so now they’re hanging their hats on the “75 of 77”. As if.
Also, see here and here and here and here.
The true consensus among scientists says that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. And the planet itself is validating that view.
[snip. Take your “deniers” label elsewhere. — mod.]
ScepticalTom says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Do some reading. I’ll start you here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
ScepticalTom says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:10 pm
And another,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
ScepticalTom says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:10 pm
I wasn’t going to waste my time on someone who misrepresents himself, but you have pissed me off.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/16/devastating-paper-on-ipcc-consensus/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/21/ten-major-failures-of-so-called-consensus-climate-science/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/
At approx 31 min into the program, Coral Davenport, an energy and environment correspondent for the National Journal , mentions one of three questions that the journal tried to ask GOP lawmakers, the first being :
“do you think that climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it global warming that is supposedly causing climate change? not the other way around.
tolo4zero says:
October 24, 2012 at 8:04 pm
You will find a lot of word-play. Things like carbon. Or is it carbon dioxide? Two completely different things. Global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption/ weather weirding, etc,….
The weasel words are usually pretty easy to spot. Could, might, may, to name a few.
Most would miss the misdirection (magicians rely on that), but not when all our eyes are watching for it.
@ur momisugly ScepticalTom says:
Why do you insist on quoting garbage papers when everyone knows they’re garbage? As stated before, 77 respondents is not a proper sample size. There’s no point in hanging on to it. It’s vapid.
If you read Anderegg and it’s SI, then you know there is no consensus. Anderegg actually demonstrates this, albeit inadvertently.
The criteria was garbage, but these are the numbers they came up with. Unless you’re prepared to state 903-472 is a consensus, then, much of what you’ve been saying here is nonsensical.
As to refutations being published in literature, it doesn’t matter to anyone here. You can write a nice and properly reviewed paper asserting the sky is purple, it doesn’t make it true. In this arena, appeals to authority hold no weight.
@Mod
It is your prerogative to remove an entire post because it uses the word “denier”. I will refrain from using it as per your wishes, this is your community after all.
But I find it odd that you moderate that, but neither you nor any other commenter has responded to the easily verifiable fact that this entire article is based on a falsehood, namely that the author refers to the wrong paper referred to by PBS.
Would anyone care to respond to my central point, anyone at all? Is there a single contrarian willing to “reach across the aisle” and recognise this very simple truth, or are you all going to respond to points that are secondary to this?
@James Baldwin
I’m not defending Anderegg at all, expect from blatant falsehoods. You have presented one:
Unless you’re prepared to state 903-472 is a consensus
Sigh, the paper reaches a figure of 97% not, 472/1375 x 1000 = a consensus of 66%.
You’ve gone wrong somewhere with your interpretation of the paper’s figures. Can you spot where?
As to refutations being published in literature, it doesn’t matter to anyone here.
I know, as you and several other posters suggest, you think the American Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is an activist organisation. UoC is apparently another. In fact some posters have suggested that every National Academy of Science in the world (that holds a position on AGW, 30+) are in some way corrupted or responding to “peer-pressure”. Anthony Watts thinks the British Meteorological Society “spins” data.
All phenomenal claims, I’m waiting for the proof.
@ur momisugly David
I wasn’t going to waste my time on someone who misrepresents himself, but you have pissed me off.
I misrepresent myself because I have a sarcastic name? Well actually I would say I am closer to a sceptic to you, since I demand empirical data for science and proof for claims such as “All the world’s National Academies of Science are in on a huge conspiracy!”.
But if you think I misrepresent myself, please point to a single solitary fact on this board I have posted (there are plenty) that is in any way false.
I’ve been very careful to stick to easily verifiable facts (unlike the author of this piece).
Does a careful posting of the facts upset you? I’m sorry to hear that.
All those who have answered ‘ScepticalTom’:
Thankyou. You have encouraged him/her/them to reveal his/her/their true nature in the posting of his/her/their own words.
Impartial observers can make their own judgements of the errors of logic and fact in those words.
Reality is as D Böehm says at October 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm
And ‘ScepticalTom’ has failed to provide a sensible argument in response to that. Which is not surprising when it is simply true.
Again, thanks to all of you. I like to see misleading propaganda exposed for what it is.
Richard
I disagree firmly with the arguments and evidence that address the numbers, qualifications and prominence of those who agree or disagree with anything that claims to be scientific or attempt to justify a scientific position by any kind of head counting. This is pandering to and indeed amplifying the public’s misconceptions about science. If the science that we inherited from the Enlightenment is to survive, the public must become informed about its nature, about what it claims and about the role that adversarial debate plays in prompting better understanding.
1. ‘Scientific consensus’ is an oxymoron – a contradiction in terms. It is the evidence that science produces, NOT the opinions of scientists, that matters.
2. Science cannot ever be ‘settled’. For example – most people agree with the ‘scientific’ finding that the earth is (kind of) spherical. But for most day to day practical purposes, science uses flat earth metaphors. The earth is seen as spherical when that viewpoint is helpful, for example when designing navigation instruments. For other purposes, it may be seen in many other ways. The way it is seen depends on why it has to be observed. ‘Objective truth’ plays no role in science, simply because science deals in metaphors and no one metaphor can serve all purposes. Only at the extremes of scale, micro and macro, could there be any use for a GUM (grand unifying metaphor).
3. Generalisations are unscientific. The assertion that there are ‘Laws of Nature’ is a very convenient metaphor but a misleading one. Science cannot and does not attribute causal relations to the phenomena. Science reports observations. When people go beyond the observations and extrapolate to make causal assertions and generalisations, they are not behaving scientifically – they are reporting opinions not observations. ‘Hypotheses non fingo’ as Newton put it so succinctly. Mathematical modelling is a kind of mixing of causal metaphors and is not in itself ‘scientific’.
4. The sciences are not intimately connected. The standards of ‘proof’, those who comprise peer groups and those who edit scientific journals are not coherent. ‘Science’ is not a singular discipline. Overarching institutions, such as the Royal Society, are not and cannot be anything but social gatherings. There are many sciences, each with its own set of conventions. The only thing they all have in common is respect for, and honesty in reporting, observations. Thus, accepting the reported observations by one of the disciplines (say ‘evolution’) in no way entails accepting the reported observations any other (e.g. AGW).
5. Science is not something that entails uncritical acceptance of anything – commonly expressed as ‘faith’ or ‘belief’. People should be warned against ‘belief in science’ because that is to remove a crucial element – criticism – from the scientific process. So because belief in science is itself unscientific, no harm may come to science by contrary opinions (e.g. anti-science). Indeed, science flourishes on well-informed and/or well argued criticism.
6. Science is a human activity and prone to respond to human errors. Scientists, although ostensibly bound to an, often unstated, code requiring the honest reporting of observations, are as prone to temptation as other humans and may respond to financial incentives or the promise of honours just as other humans may. There is corruption in science as there is in other fields of human activity. Openness in sharing data and to critical assessments is the hall mark of honest science.
At the risk of being thoroughly unscientific, I assert that were the public to understand the nature of science they would not be so easily misled by charlatans and they would try to ensure that their representatives in legislatures understood what science is all about.
I hope that one of these days politicians and school teachers come to understand what science is about.
mitigatedskeptic,
I agree with you that consensus is not science. But the alarmist cult keeps raising the issue, so it must be countered. The fact is that they never had a real consensus of opinion supporting their demonization of “carbon”.
Yes, D Böehm, they never did have consensus but by asserting they have, they trap those who disagree with them into discussing ‘consensus’, or lack of it, instead of demonstrating that the conclusion that CO2 is the main cause of GW simply is NOT scientific.
The whole scam could be torpedoed below the waterline if it could be demonstrated with hard evidence that AGW was an invention of Mrs Thatcher to disarm the miners’ unions, clear the way for nuclear and put herself centre-stage in international affairs. Successive UK Prime Ministers, especially Blair, were only too happy to step into her shoes in the international scene and continue the alarm.
There must be people close to Thatcher at the time who were privy to the plot that set up the computer-stuffed Hadley Center, that anointed it with the blessing of the then highly respected Met Office and the academic respectability of the the cash-strapped University of East Anglia and that set the whole IPCC gravy train in motion.
The whole bubble could be burst if the evidence could be produced that the whole thing, greenhouse effect, AGW, carbon cap and trade and all, was a political plot and nothing whatever to do with climate or weather science. Only this move can save the reputation of honest science and the world from fuel poverty. But where is the evidence, who is hiding it and why?
mitigatedsceptic:
re your post at October 25, 2012 at 1:55 pm, I analysed the origin of the AGW-scare decades ago, before it happened, and the analysis predicted it would happen.
Many years ago an update of that analysis was posted on the web site of the late and sorely missed John Daly. Earlier this year Tallbloke copied it onto his website. The version on Daly’s web site can still be read at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
It has not had the effect your post assumes.
Richard
Thanks very much , Richard.
Yes I was aware of that material but although it is very plausible, it cites no primary sources and can be dismissed all too easily as a ‘just so’ story – a conspiracy theory.
Unless it can be substantiated it can carry very little weight, even with sensation-hungry media. What we need are well-authenticated accounts of who said what to whom, where, how and when; preferably in the form of Cabinet Minutes or memoranda. In short, the account needs scientific rigour to support it.
If you have access to the material which I hope still exists, let’s get it into the open.
Surely Nigel Lawson must know all about it!
mitigatedsceptic:
At October 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm you say to me
With respect, it specifically rules out any conspiracy saying
It is part of a report I produced for the British Association of Colliery Management in 1980 to predict possible similar threats to the UK coal industry similar to the Acid Rain issue that was then raging. As I said, the AGW-scare was unheard-of at the time.
My original report IS the primary source.
The important point is that the information does NOT have the effect which you assumed.
Richard
Your report of 1980 is certainly a primary source but, as it was before the event, it is not evidence that Thatcher ‘invented’ AGW.
Have you evidence that the information (that Thatcher invented AGW) was ever in the public domain? Did any media run it as a story? If so was it ignored?
Please can you provide a reference to role of Sir Crispin Tickell and his suggestion to Mrs T? That seems to be the seminal moment?
mitigatedsceptic:
re your post at October 25, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I answer your questions on my article in the discussion of it on Tallbloke’s Workshop. The link to the thread is
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
My article is a distraction from this thread. And I repeat, the important point is that the information does NOT have the effect which you assumed.
Richard
“AGW was” NOT “an invention of Mrs Thatcher[….] Mrs Thatcher may have adopted AGW as a policy and given the policy unprecedented promotion, but her administration certainly did not even remotely “invent” AGW as a policy issue. We had deep misgivings in the discussions at our weather station in 1973-1974 when the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) announcedd its adoption of AGW as a recognized policy issue.
The invention of AGW is traceable backwards in time by a number of threads well into the early 20th Century and perhaps into the late 19th Century. In particular THE WORLD GAME: INTEGRATIVE RESOURCE UTILIZATION PLANNING TOOL By R. Buckminster Fuller; World Resources Inventory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 U.S.A.; the Club of Rome; and an assortment of post-1945 United Nations organizations were responsible for training generations of post-graduate and governmental proponents of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) advocates.
Mrs. Thatcher employed AGW policies long before defined by academic activists promoting each other into positions of authority in the scientific organizations and government in furtherance of their messianic goals for environmental protection and human population control.
You were invited to produce the 900 plus abstracts Oreskes claimed to have found in support of AGW, when others have reported those same papers had no such abstracts. Since the abstracts Oreskes claimed to have used are evidently non-existent, it appears Oreskes falsified the existance of the abstracts and any scientific basis for her paper’s conclusions. In other words, without evidence of the existence of the abstracts and their support of AGW, Oresles’ paper and its conclusions were fraudulent. Your citation of the Oreskes paper after being informed of its evident fraudulent nature would also be fraudulent in turn. Until and unless you can produce reasonable evidence the Oreskes paper had the claimed number of abstracts supporting AGW, we readers are compelled to observe your deliberate and persistant citation of the oreskes paper as an attempt to continue the Oreskes fraud. Your denial of this conclusion will be baselss until and unless you present the required evidence of the existence of these abstracts.