Consensus does not necessarily guarantee sound science
Guest post by Forrest M. Mims III
Consensus is often cited in support of scientific paradigms, including anthropogenic climate change. Australian physicist Tom Quirk has neatly dissected the consensus argument for the human role in climate change in an article in Quadrant Online entitled “Of climate science and stomach bugs.” This curiously entitled piece begins with the story of how Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren revolutionized the treatment of stomach ulcers in 1982 when they discovered that peptic ulcers are mainly caused by a bacterium.
While their claim was stubbornly rejected by drug companies and surgeons who profited handsomely from treating ulcer patients, in the end truth prevailed over dogma and Marshall and Warren received the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
Quirk’s article then compares the conflicts of interest, money and pseudoscience of the stomach bugs story with the ongoing debate over climate change. His account reinforces the sometimes neglected but essential role of skepticism in all of science and is well worth reading.
See: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/01/of-climate-science-and-stomach-bugs
“The consensus of scientists is created by the weight of the evidence.”
That is obviously not true in the case of CAGW. There is no evidence…just a theory. There is evidence for about a degree of warming for a doubling of CO2 (all else being equal), but that does not a crisis make.
Also, the weight of published papers supporting natural climate variability over the last 2,000 years was huge when Mann came out with his hockey stick. All of that weight was quickly discarded for this one, poorly done study, because it was politically correct to do so. The weight of the science was meaningless in creating the ‘consensus’ on natural climate variability (although that is finally starting to change as the evidence continues to mount).
There comes a point in time when the weight of the evidence will dictate the consensus among scientists, but in the absence of evidence (and sometimes even in spite of it), scientific consensus is created by the politics and funding of science.
Ulcers.
Lazy, it is a very well known and very interesting story, if you weren’t following it at the time, or have not heard of it since, or have not taken the time to read up on it since you embarked on this discussion, you may have to rename yourself – Distracted, Very Lazy Teenager.
The implication here?: If 97% of ulcers are caused by H pylori, and following treatment, 50% are still caused by H pylori, then treatment success rate is 94% (ie 94% of ALL ulcers are cured by antibiotic treatment). But, that aside, your point is what?
@ur momisugly izen
Still another paper from your link:
“SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE” L. J. Gray,1,2 J. Beer,3 M. Geller,4 J. D. Haigh,5 M. Lockwood,6,7 K. Matthes,8,9 U. Cubasch,8 D. Fleitmann,10,11 G. Harrison,12 L. Hood,13 J. Luterbacher,14 G. A. Meehl,15 D. Shindell,16 B. van Geel,17 and W. White18
”Further observations and research are required to improve our understanding of solar forcing mechanisms and their impacts on the Earth’s climate. In particular, it is necessary (1) to understand the recent SORCE SIM measurements of spectrally resolved irradiances and assess their implications for solar influence on climate (see section 2.2.2); (2) to determine an accurate value of the total and spectrally resolved solar irradiance during a grand solar minimum such as the Maunder Minimum, when the Sun was in a different mode than during the past few decades (see section 2.2.3); (3) to improve the characterization of the solar signal in surface and tropospheric observations as additional years of data becomes available (see sections 3.2 and 3.3); (4) to improve the characterization of the observed stratospheric temperature response to the 11 year solar cycle, particularly the vertical structure of the response at tropical latitudes so that the differences between the estimated SC signals from the TOVS data and from reanalysis data can be fully understood, which will likely require future observations with improved vertical resolution (see section 3.1.2); and (5) to improve model simulations of the observed solar signals in climate observations and, in particular, assess the requirement to explicitly represent stratospheric mechanisms in future climate models, which will require fully coupled ocean‐troposphere‐stratosphere models with interactive chemistry so that the relative contribution and interactions of the top‐down and bottom‐up influences can be understood. We note that, there will still be a continuing role for simpler models to investigate and improve the simulation of specific mechanisms, including the development of models that investigate possible influences of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation (see section 4.4).
To quote one of my favorite movies: “Are you sure about that 5 minutes?”
Another case of the medical consensus being proven wrong: Semmelweis recognized that hygiene practices greatly reduced infectious deaths following childbirth. He had observed that infectious deaths were far greater where student doctors coming from dissection classes (with their unwashed hands) attended the childbirth wards. He instituted rigorous handwashing methods and achieved remarkable improvements. But his ideas were largely not accepted. I can only imagine the huge frustration poor Semmelweis must have felt.
re: trafamadore says: January 21, 2013 at 8:28 pm
How about we (and this includes you) try the scientific method instead? There’s this little basic issue of the null hypothesis – which AGW advocates have yet to manage to overcome. Once AGW proponents have managed that, then we can talk about your suggestion. Until then, the onus is on the AGW proponents, not those skeptical of it’s unproven and so far, scientifically unsupported claims. That’s what Mann’s hockey stick was all about – trying to provide ostensible evidence overturning the null hypothesis of natural variation. He failed. The scientific evidence shows us that it’s been hotter many many times in the past, temperatures have risen every bit as rapidly in the past, and to greater degree also. All well before man was producing any significant amount of CO2, and both during the present interglacial (e.g., within the past 12,000 years or so) and during prior interglacials.
izen says: January 22, 2013 at 5:58 am
“…Do you think that all science {ie cosmology, particle physics, genetics} is constrained to provide a consensus to conform with the assumptions or beliefs of the funding bodies, or is this a conspiracy hypothesis {without evidence} that you only apply to science that deals with the climate?…”
It is a good question.
But, can you think of another branch of science, besides ‘climate science’ where almost 100% of the scientists are government employees, or employees of government funded institutions, and where there has been a sudden vast influx of primarily government funding to investigate a particular theory?
Governments fund research according to policy, and (with research) you generally will get that which you fund.
It certainly does not take a conspiracy, it is simply just another unintended consequence.
re: Climate Ace says: January 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Just a minor aside, but Obama actually won the election by only about 300,000 votes total – in 3 key swing states. One of them (Florida I think?), would have had all it’s electoral votes flipped to Romney over about 78,000 votes. You’re thinking of the popular vote, but the electoral votes are what wins/loses the elections, and it was awfully close in those three key swing states.
How do you test a “scientific consensus?” By taking a poll, perhaps?
re: izen says: January 22, 2013 at 12:50 am
You shot any shred of credibility you might have had down right there, with a simple little three letter word “all.”
re: izen says: January 22, 2013 at 5:00 am
Epic logical fail. Of course when you remove the sample population with bacterial ulcers those remaining are more likely to be ones that have other causes. If 90% are caused by H. Pylori, as those 90% are successfully treated, the remaining 10% now increase to 100% of the ulcer population. That 100% figure is then meaningless with regard to how many ulcers are caused by H. Pylori, because you just removed the entire H. Pylori set. What a silly statement.
Rational Db8 says:You shot any shred of credibility you might have had down right there, with a simple little three letter word “all.”
Oh no R-DB8, you have to follow Izen’s link. You see all the anti-AGW papers have been de-bunked, so we can discount those. sarc/
@- Dodgy Geezer (Re:- Piltdown man doubted from start)
“I would like to see your evidence for that assertion. My understanding was always that there was a strong consensus of the entire western establishment, with the British Museum, the Royal Society and the Smithsonian actively suppressing contrary evidence. ”
Try this –
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/the_piltdown_inquest/chapters/chapter3.html
The bit about the Dental expert Dr. Courtney W. Lyne pointing out that the teeth and jaw cannot be human or fit with the skull in the face of the Piltdown supporters in 1916 is just… funny.
But the original Nature article in 1913 quotes the anatomist David Waterston who identified the jaw as from an ape and said this –
“No human mandible is known which shows anything like the same resemblance to the chimpanzee jaw in outline and in all its details. Of [41] the molar teeth, 1 need only say here that not only do they approach the ape form, but in several respects are identical with them. The cranial fragments of the Piltdown skull, on the other hand, are in practically all their details essentially human. If that be so, it seems to me to be as inconsequent to refer the mandible and the cranium to the same individual as it would be to articulate a chimpanzee’s foot with the bones of an essentially human thigh and leg. (Waterston, 1913)”
Which is about as close as polite Edwardian Englishmen got to calling each other idiots in those days!
I expect that we are soon to experience a repeat of the ‘stomach ulcer’ treatment paradigm shift with regards to curing obesity. The “consensus” is that obesity is caused by bad eating habits, but a growing body of research is moving towards the conclusion that obesity (and many other low-grade chronic health problems) are, like stomach ulcers, caused by bacteria inside us – specifically the Gram-negative bacteria that produce lipopolysaccharide endotoxins (Enterobacter, Escherichia, Salmonella, etc.)
There is a considerable financial and political investment in the ‘weight control’ business, and they will be severely impacted when ‘obesity’, hypertension, chronic fatigue syndrome, colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, Type II diabetes, high cholesterol, and probably may other problems turn out to be due to infection, treatable, and even curable by eliminating the lipopolysaccharide-producing bacteria that thrive within us.
Apart from your extreme stretch in using “all,” as noted above, there are two major flaws in your paragraphs:
Your “count” includes, I suspect, papers that are not “attribution” studies, but rather impact or coping papers, which simply endorse AGW as a working assumption.
“AGW theory” isn’t what we contrarians take issue with, but rather “CAGW theory.” This confusion about what we are “denying” was evident in Obama’s inauguration speech the other day. It’s a symptom of his careless thinking—and of widespread warmist duplicity in equating the consensus about AGW with an alarmist conclusion.
@ur momisugly izen
From your link again:
Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments – Axford et al. (2012)
”Previous studies in the Jakobshavn region have found that the local Greenland Ice Sheet margin was most retracted behind its present position between 6 and 5 ka, and here we use chironomids to estimate that local summer temperatures were 2–3 °C warmer than present during that time of minimum ice sheet extent. As summer insolation declined through the late Holocene, summer temperatures cooled and the local ice sheet margin expanded. Gradual, insolation-driven millennial-scale temperature trends in the study area were punctuated by several abrupt climate changes, including a major transient event recorded in all five lakes between 4.3 and 3.2 ka, which overlaps in timing with abrupt climate changes previously documented around the North Atlantic region and farther afield at ∼4.2 ka.””
Hmmm, wonder how it got 2-3 °C warmer than present with CO2 @ur momisugly less than 300 ppm.
The real story –
“we’re not making any money out of this !”
@ur momisugly izen
From your link:
“The global energy balance from a surface perspective” – Wild et al. (2012)
Pay-walled but you can look @ur momisugly the graphic and see the “residual” (heat imbalance) is estimated @ur momisugly 0.6 (0.2 – 1.0) W/m2.
How come the 40% (or so) increase in CO2 that supposedly should result in (based on RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) of about 1.5 W/m2 additional greenhouse effect and less outgoing radiation due to “radiating from higher colder” altitude only manages a 0.6 (0.2-1.0) W/m2 “imbalance”? Could we already be half way to the temperature increase required for balance? Considering radiation increases to the Fourth power in relation to temerature increase that would mean we’d definately be looking at less than 1.6 °C temperature increase for 2XCO2 (estimating linearly so overestimating the nonlinear relation using 0.4 C as realized temp increase).
@ur momisugly Izen
From your link:
“Historical changes in El Niño and La Niña characteristics in an ocean reanalysis” – Ray & Giese (2012)
“Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.”
Perhaps reading some Bob Tisdale would help.
Its funny really – I think most people miss the point when it comes to climate change. You can believe the science or not but the point is we are relying on finite resources for transport, heating and other vital means. By taking action to mitigate and adapt to climate change we are helping to conserve the world’s precious resources and protecting our own homes and businesses. I ask myself why anyone would oppose such measures unless they had a vested interest in these finite tesources. The only other explanation is that they have been brainwashed by certain media outlets who are linked to thesr vested interests with labels such as leftys and doo-gooders. I just hope the younger generations see through the spin.
Nick Kermode, When areyou starting your stand-up tour? You’ve got some hilarious material there
re: shoestringtom says: January 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Confounding separate issues, and using one to justify the other never helps anything. If you want to advocate conservation of finite resources, then do so based on finite resource issues — don’t try to tag onto emotional scare stories to justify it.
Why might others disagree with your proposed conservation? Perhaps because we disagree with just how finite those resources really are. Perhaps because we recognize that those very resources are what has allowed us to climb out of the third world, and effectively doubled our lifespans. Perhaps because people have been screaming that we’ll run out of those very resources since 1910 or so, when the entire world only had another decade of oil left. Perhaps because we also have faith in our technological and scientific abilities to adapt and come up with new ways to do things when necessary. Perhaps because we believe that the ‘solutions’ and ‘conservation’ that so many are currently advocating with regard to ‘climate change’ are actually more harmful, wasteful, and deleterious overall – not only to mankind, but to the environment – than using conventional resources. Perhaps because many ‘sustainable’ or ‘renewable’ or ‘green’ energy sources aren’t able to even begin to replace conventional sources, and often actually require more conventional sources to back them up. Perhaps because the costs of proposed “solutions” are so extreme that vastly more people are harmed and killed NOW than the worst half-way credible estimates of harm 100 years from now if ‘global warming’ even pans out and actually occurs. Perhaps because we see that the majority of claims about harm from global warming utterly fail to consider offsetting beneficial changes that would also be expected.
Perhaps because we’re scientists and it p*sses us off to see the scientific method perverted and abused.
I too whole-heartedly hope that the younger generation manages to see through the spin and brainwashing they’re currently being forced thorough by the likes of those who think as you do.
Rational Db8 says:
January 22, 2013 at 9:47 am
re: Climate Ace says: January 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Lots of folk, and lots of pundits, had persuaded that Romney would win.
He lost by around 5 million votes. (I think… I may have that figure wrong. by 3 million votes? Anyway, it was lots of votes.)
Just a minor aside, but Obama actually won the election by only about 300,000 votes total – in 3 key swing states. One of them (Florida I think?), would have had all it’s electoral votes flipped to Romney over about 78,000 votes. You’re thinking of the popular vote, but the electoral votes are what wins/loses the elections, and it was awfully close in those three key swing states.
I see that we are talking about slightly different things. Bottom line is that Obama got around five million more votes than Romney. Had this overal vote between Obama and Romney been evenly distributed across the US, Obama would have won in every single state. But the votes are not evenly distributed.
I take your point about the distinction between electoral votes and the votes of individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
Consensus is absolutely the weakest argument. One would certainly expect the consensus to be strongest right BEFORE a theory is demonstrated to be wrong. There’s definitely not going to be much consensus AFTER it has been proved wrong. Not a lot of Copernicans around today ….
Ace says:
“I take your point about the distinction between electoral votes and the votes of individuals.”
Well, apparently not.
Many states are simply written off by one side or the other. How many times did Obama campaign in Texas? Almost none. But he spent plenty of taxpayer-funded time and money flying Air Force One all across Ohio and Virginia.
It’s all about the Electoral Vote count. Just ask Algore.
BobM says:
January 21, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Excellent example of bias in sampling. Anyone who has followed college football for some time and who was not overwhelmed by loyalty to Notre Dame would have said that Notre Dame had not a chance of winning.