New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield”
This report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”. The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013
By insisting on scientific consensus and the “elimination of doubt”, seeking to declare the science of AGW settled once and for all, and imbuing this putative settlement with highly normative and pejorative allegations (to question is “irresponsible, reckless and immoral”), the consensus approach clings to being (solely) “science-based”, but its position is at the same time implicitly in direct opposition to the ethos of “normal science”. It is not supported, justified or endorsed by science in its canonical expression, where science, based on thinkers such as Kant, Popper, Merton and Polanyi is seen to be constituted on continued discussion, open criticism, antidogmatism, (self)critical mindset, methodological doubt, and the organization of scepticism. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013
The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world. –István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 14 April 2013
Since 1997, global temperatures have failed to rise. As a result, climate predictions and climate science are facing a crisis of credibility. We don’t know whether or not global warming will become a global problem this century. It is certain, however, that Britain’s unilateral climate policy is undermining the UK’s economy and is threatening its competitiveness. Benny Peiser, Cambridge Enterprise & Technology Club, 25 April 2013
Many blame the public’s confusion over global warming on a widespread ignorance of science. A scientific grounding wouldn’t hurt but it also wouldn’t help much — few laymen, no matter how well informed, could be expected to follow the arcane climate change calculations that specialized scientists wield. The much better explanation for the public’s confusion lies in a widespread ignorance of history, not least by scientists. We learn that history trumps science when the science is speculative, politicized, and at odds with reality. — Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 19 April 2013
There is compelling evidence that, across the disciplines, peer review often fails to root out science fraud. Yet even basic errors in the literature can now be extremely difficult to correct on any reasonable timescale. –Philip Moriarty, Times Higher Education, 18 April 2013
Steven Mosher:
Your entire post at April 23, 2013 at 12:13 pm says
Thankyou for another demonstration of your cogent, analytical performance.
Yes, I quoted the whole thing.
Richard
A quick and funny example of why you shouldn’t take people out of context.
Steven Mosher says:
“yes I read the whole thing.”
Yes, I believe you did enjoy reading 50 shades of gray!
The excellent people commenting here (except Lief) would never do such a thing. lol
Mark and two cats –
Just ‘how’ has the catholic church rejected science.
This ought to be a ‘big bang’!
Exactly. It was at the moment that the science was declared “settled” and the word “d****r” was first fired in anger that my doubts about the claims of climate science crystallised into absolute certainty that it was no longer science.
Box of Rocks says: “And for all the bashing the catholic church has received at the hands of the liberals, it chose the problem the best way possible – using science.”
The Catholic Church’s relationship with Galileo is full of irony. Galileo had rejected Kepler’s view that the planetary paths were elliptical, in favor of Copernicus’ perfect circles. Thus, the observed data for the orbits of the planets were more in line with Ptolemy’s system of crystal spheres than they were with Galileo’s view. I.e. Galileo’s model was more correct, but the observed data favored the incorrect model.
In some ways, the Catholic church observed the principals of science better than Galileo.
Joe Dunfee
To the people chuckling at Mosher’s outburst: Have you read this paper? I tried but didn’t get very far, it’s pretty awful. Maybe someone will speak up and say yeah, this is their kind of science?
The theatrical tropes of the debate is also squarely pinpointed by the fact that the play’s definitive number one villain and enfant terrible is the agent and actor (or rather “actant” in the vocabulary of actor-network-theory) that goes by the name of CO2. Carbon dioxide. This gas is quite literally the “smoking gun” (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010: 11) of the play, metaphorically represented as something like the (Lord of The Rings’) Sauron in the saga of global warming, and believed to play the major role in causing anthropogenic global warming – with all its possible detrimental consequences. Yet CO2 is also a major actant in photosynthesis and the life-giving production of oxygen. With CO2 at the centrepiece of the play, inhabiting this radically double-edged position of being both the gas of life and death, global warming as eschatological tales of humanity’s end-times, and its embedded counter narrative of secular (or rather quasi-religious) earthly resurrection and salvation through heroic deeds and technological measures, the drama of global warming attains the level of meaning that myths are made of.
@Cynical Scientst
Exactly. It was at the moment that the science was declared “settled” and the word “d****r” was first fired in anger that my doubts about the claims of climate science crystallised into absolute certainty that it was no longer science.
I can recall reading Steve McIntyre’s blog when it first came out, with the news of how he was treated by Nature when he tried to put a correction in, and thinking “This isn’t how science is supposed to work. There’s something wrong here…”
It might be interesting to collect the stories of how we all became ‘deniers’. It would make a better paper than Lewandowsky’s, and a more accurate social study of behaviour. For instance, I was not able to understand the maths of the PCA fiddle that Mann did, but I could spot a scam quite easily in his behaviour. I have since wondered why none of the politicians saw anything suspicious in the early refusals to provide any data..?
Re Consensus:
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no
evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view
of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread
belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible.
– Bertrand Russell, in A History of Western Philosophy,
fredd:
re your post at April 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm.
Your point is well made. The amusement was that Mosher did NOT make the same point well.
Richard
The SINTEF report appears to have been removed. I’ve checked the links at all of the postings including one in the media.
Austin says:
April 23, 2013 at 9:44 am
“Record lows will be shattered tonight and tomorrow across the high plains. Amarillo’s low is 30 degrees for this date and the forecast low is 23 degrees. Similar setup for much of New Mexico, CO, UT, KS and NE. This hard freezing record cold will move East tomorrow and Thursday. Much of Canada and Alaska has been running 30 degrees below normal for the last month.”
Amarillo at 23 on April 23? Amarillo is only a click north of Atlanta. Astounding. This is worth watching. Thanks for the news. Good luck to you.
Do you even know what “science” was supposedly rejected? If you’re refering to heliocentrism, it’s important to note that as far as explaining the data, it didn’t do a better job than the epicycle system then in vogue. This is because Galileo, among others, insisted that orbits were circular. He was vigorous in attacking comtemporaries who suggested that celestial bodies might follow eliptical paths. Focault’s pendulum was a couple hundred years in the future, so Galileo didn’t have an observational leg to stand on. In this particular case, Galileo appears to have suffered from the “pretty theory” complex: “It’s such a beautiful theory, it must be true.”
SINTEF April 2013 – Page 29
… a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 and broadly supported Mann et al.’s findings…
Richard Muller at Climate One
“No. No. No. I was on that National Research Council Panel…”
“None of the key conclusions that [Michael Mann] drew in his 1998, 1999 work held up once the National Academy reviewed it.”
no comment.
blueice2hotsea says:
Richard Muller at Climate One
“No. No. No. I was on that National Research Council Panel…”
“None of the key conclusions that [Michael Mann] drew in his 1998, 1999 work held up once the National Academy reviewed it.”
This comment made be curious, I hadn’t seen the NRC report before so I just looked it up. Right away this 2006 report makes a point similar to the PAGES 2k 2013 findings:
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture
of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm
conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm
Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The
existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety
of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records,
and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be
found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine
sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and
duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude
and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
Also, Muller’s recollection to the contrary, the NRC report does hold up the main conclusion from Mann’s papers, although cautioning that there is greater uncertainty.
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward. Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.
Here (I hope) is a cleaner version of that first NRC quote above, sorry!
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
Steven Mosher says:
April 23, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Of course Mosher would say that–the paper takes his pet project and sticks a fork in it. Deeply.
(Although he didn’t specify what “paper” he’s referring to; he didn’t define what he meant by “fluff”; and has been pointed out by others, we don’t know what “whole” he read.)
Come back, Steven, when you’ve got something definitive to refute–and if not, we all understand.
(I wonder if he was as precise in his “reading” as he was in his response. Personally, I found this paper on the Global Warming Battlefield to be rather insightful–and I didn’t sleep through all 82 pages as if it were “fluff”–I only needed the summary to understand why Mosher’s responded the way he did. But it isn’t the report’s author’s ignorance that’s on display here–If I was selling stoves that didn’t heat up after 17 years, I’d not want that advertised at all.)
D.J. Hawkins said:
April 23, 2013 at 4:16 pm
Do you even know what “science” was supposedly rejected? If you’re referring to heliocentrism, it’s important to note that as far as explaining the data, it didn’t do a better job than the epicycle system then in vogue. This is because Galileo, among others, insisted that orbits were circular.
———————————-
Galileo’s system was less than accurate and has since been supplanted, yes. That is how science is supposed to work. What the church did was to reject any affront to their doctrine – which was my point in comparing it to today’s hidebound climate science.
I like Josh’s cartoon, but it may be a bit unfair to astrologers. Astrologers don’t “adjust” the positions of planets and stars. Also, though their predictions are often incorrect, they occasionally get something right, which is more than I can say for some climate scientists.
Dodgy Geezer says:
April 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
It might be interesting to collect the stories of how we all became ‘deniers’.
============
I tried to ask questions at Real Climate about climate 50 years ago, when I was growing up and studying such questions in school. Having been alive at the time I thought I might be able to help out some of the scientists that were too young to have any first hand knowledge.
If you have ever been to RC, you know the rest. You would have thought I had sinned against god and the heavens for asking such questions of “real scientists”. Mere mortals are not permitted to ask such questions of their betters. We are obviously less than humans. We are deniers. We are unworthy of answers. We should be thankful they take our money in the name of our salvation. Amen.
Box of Rocks said:
April 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Mark and two cats –
Just ‘how’ has the catholic church rejected science. This ought to be a ‘big bang’!
—————————————
The church rejected the process of science by insisting that scripture trumped observation.
As to the big bang, maybe I’m dumber than a box o’ rocks, but it seems to me that had anyone posited that theory in Galileo’s day, the Inquisition would have put them on trial too.
Mark and two Cats,
I have a post on my to-do list about black holes, the speed of light and galaxy formation. The Big bang is what it is, I prefer science to be less stringy and more relative.
Sparks says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Mark and two Cats,
I have a post on my to-do list about black holes, the speed of light
==========
ah, but what about the speed of gravity? how is it that the distant stars appear motionless when we stand still, and move when we spin, if all motion is simply relative with no preferred frame of reference.? how is it that except for the rotation of the earth, we appear to be spinning at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the universe?
Caleb says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:17 pm
it may be a bit unfair to astrologers.
=====
the techniques of astrology are used to predict the tides with great accuracy.
Boy, wouldn’t it be a real hoot if the “Greenhouse Effect” turned out to be nothing more than an optical delay line, or a multilayer optical interference filter without the interference? That way by simply delaying the flow of energy (thermal/visible light/IR light) through the Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe system it would have nothing to do with the average (cough, cough, equilibrium) temperature of the Earth. Boy, imagine all those peer reviewed papers and decades wasted chasing a chimera…
Perhaps if we re-evaluate the data yet again we can surely find the “smoking gun”, it must be there someplace, maybe in the deep oceans ?
No, that could never be, it was a consensus after all.
But then again, it is still not warming……
Cheers, Kevin.
Sparks said:
April 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Mark and two Cats,
I have a post on my to-do list about black holes, the speed of light and galaxy formation. The Big bang is what it is, I prefer science to be less stringy and more relative.
—————————————
Cool! Maybe you can get round to a GUT too 🙂