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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ferdberple,
Are you being funny and showing how clever you are? wait for the post, the speed of gravity is timing.
Mark and two Cats,
What is a GUT? sorry, laugh if you want, I can not place what a GUT is.
One comment for fredd.
The purpose of the 2006 NRC report was to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years….
The Hockeystick controversy was also addressed. One of the Mann et al conclusions was deemed “plausible”, in lieu of subsequent research. Nevertheless, Muller’s point seems to be that the NRC found NONE of the Mann 1998, 1999 key conclusions to be justified without at least referring to subsequent research by others.
At best, a tepid endorsement.
blueice2hotsea,
At best, a tepid endorsement.
So If the planet catastrophically warms ?
BTW, the top graph invited my mind to consider a comparison of proxy models going back 2000 years or so, like Craig Loehle presented.
There was some discussion about centring the various graphs and scaling them for better comparison. Here, the time axis is well known. In the proxy graphs it is not. Can you see the dangers of assuming that the highest point or some other feature is coincidental on a global scale and so justifies centring by moving the time axis horizontally? It’s not even coincidental on the tiny scale of these Islands.
To be fair to Astrology, I wrote a skit about a decade ago for an April Fool’s joke (for those not acquainted with this quaint British custom, on the morning of April 1st, it is customary to play practical jokes, tell superficially true stories which are humorous bollocks in reality etc etc) addressing astrological predictions in a scientific way.
The approach taken was to analyse the birth astrology of a Nobel Laureate and to attempt to predict outcomes and character traits. Of course, I was cheating as I knew of the man and and had several conversations with former colleagues/employees of his. However, in that skit, I documented a population-based study approach on a population which could theoretically be used to see if astrology had any basis in fact whatever.
It’s certainly possible to postulate that, in more primitive societies, the traits of those born in a particular month of the year would be influenced by the effect of the changing seasons both on the environment within the maternal womb but also on their first year of life. You would probably postulate that, as societies advance, the effects of those seasonal changes may be ironed out and hence the astrological ‘traits’ might be eliminated. You can also postulate that, if everyone knew what they were supposed to be like, they might be more likely to conform to the ideal.
So the best way to test astrology is to find populations who knew nothing of it for 35 years, then retrospectively analyze whether or not populations conform to it in any meaningful way statistically.
So far as I am aware, if such studies have been done, they have not been publicized widely.
Good idea to do the science before dismissing astrology as quackery.
It may well be quackery, but scientists saying it is doesn’t make it so.
Scientific analysis could make it so.
ferdberple says:
April 23, 2013 at 7:03 pm
“ah, but what about the speed of gravity? ”
It has to be instantanious, otherwise my model of the world falls apart. In other words, it has no speed.
SINTEF is a Scandinavian research organization. The client for this study was Det Norske AS.
http://www.detnor.no/en/about-det-norske/about-det-norske
I believe they are a Norwegian oil company.
I, unlike Steven haven’t read “the whole thing” yet, so am not quite sure what he meant by “82 pages of fluff”. I don’t even know where he came up with “82 pages”, since it is actually 84 pages. Although, it should be pointed out that only pages 6 thru 69 represent the meat and potatoes of the paper, and I have noticed some blank pages and/or partial pages here and there. So in all, perhaps there are only 60 pages of actual reading material. Maybe that was what he meant by “fluff”. I doubt that he could possibly argue with the conclusion of the paper, though, that basically, Climate Science has thrown scientific method out the window, to the detriment of mankind, and science itself. Call me skeptical, but I can’t believe he read the whole thing. If he has, perhaps he should take an alka-seltzer, and call in the morning.
If not reading the whole thing, I do highly recommend reading the Conclusions, which begins on page 66, and goes thru page 69.
fredd:
re your posts at April 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm and April 23, 2013 at 5:24 pm.
Allow me to give you a clue.
It does not matter who said what, when and how.
It does matter that the ‘hockey stick of Mann Bradley & Hughes was – and is – bollocks.
Richard
Sparks says:
April 23, 2013 at 7:35 pm
Mark and two Cats,
What is a GUT? sorry, laugh if you want, I can not place what a GUT is.
It stands for “Grand Unified Theory” (I was curious, so looked it up). It would be nice if physics could be tidied up. Damn Einstein anyway. He started it.
Anyone have a response to the observation that SINTEF is basically supported by oil company money? I’m debating a friend.
Mark and two Cats says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Me thinks you need to update your smears to the 21st century….
Gary Harkness says:
The answer is that even if true, it doesn’t matter one whit because that is both smear and ad hom argument. They need to debate what the paper says.
@ur momisugly Gary Harkness “Anyone have a response to the observation that SINTEF is basically supported by oil company money? ”
Gary. This study is funded by a Norwegian oil company, and so stated on the cover of the study. Just look for the client, and then google that name. The reason I posted that comment is not because I believe that it means much, but there are those brain-dead acolytes of the climate apocalypse who will see this as a knock-out punch. It’s better to be prepared for these little events.
In the future, try finding a better example. Galileo was challenging the current orthodoxy which in turn was based on the historical and then-current exigesis of an authoritative source – the Bible. Try reading Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini and you will see outright acknowledgement that there is a possibilty the heliocentric theory might prevail, but at present there was no evidence this was true. As I pointed out previously and you have studiously ignored. If Galileo was going to claim everyone else had it wrong, it was his duty as a scientist to provide empirical evidence of the superiority of his world view, not just that he had a prettier theory. This he could not do. Find yourself another poster-boy. Maybe Wegener would do.
Thanks, everybody…I’m not sure I got anything I can use. A good friend, with a fair mind I might add, believes that anything from NASA is gospel and not subject to question while anything funded by the oil companies is to be dismissed out of hand. I have already given him the arguments about government money being as corrupting as oil money. I have also urged him to read the report, which I feel is a good summary at least of the current state of the debate. I emphasize that this is a good and fair man. I want to make the case, not shut or shout him down. any help?
@ur momisugly Gary, Your friend seems to think the provenance of an argument is more important than the argument itself, which is an irrational position based on fear since clearly, he’s afraid to think for himself. I don’t believe there is any way to convince someone like that of the error in that type of thinking, and it is probably unwise to try.
There is truth in that, Bruce. With neither of us being science people and the science being so arcane there is a big obstacle there. But he is a good guy and it is fun trying to crack his shell. Wish their was some magic phrase or piece of information I could use. I get tired of being told that anything sponsored by Big Oil isn’t worth listening to.
Thanks
D.J. Hawkins said:
April 24, 2013 at 10:43 am
Mark and two Cats says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm
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.
In the future, try finding a better example. Galileo was challenging the current orthodoxy which in turn was based on the historical and then-current exigesis of an authoritative source – the Bible. Try reading Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini and you will see outright acknowledgement that there is a possibilty the heliocentric theory might prevail, but at present there was no evidence this was true. As I pointed out previously and you have studiously ignored. If Galileo was going to claim everyone else had it wrong, it was his duty as a scientist to provide empirical evidence of the superiority of his world view, not just that he had a prettier theory. This he could not do. Find yourself another poster-boy. Maybe Wegener would do.
—————————–
Galileo was not my example – I was referring to a post by Box of Rocks. Please try to keep up.
My comparison of the Inquisition and contemporary climate science was apt because of the inflexibility of both, which you studiously ignore.
And just as IPCC’s ARs are not an authoritative source on climate science, the bible is not an authoritative source on celestial mechanics.
In future, try keeping religion outa science 😉
Box of Rocks said:
April 24, 2013 at 6:25 am
Mark and two Cats says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Me thinks you need to update your smears to the 21st century….
——————————
Climate science and the Inquisition are on about an equal footing – I need update nothing.
And it ain’t a smear if it’s true!
It’s all consensus and no controversy in today’s California Water Plan eNews, which includes a link to a publication by NRDC and American Rivers that “provides strategies to deal with water-related effects of climate change”. Appendix I provides sample legislation. As others have noted, it’s models all the way down.
http://www.nrdc.org/water/climate-smart/files/getting-climate-smart.pdf
The eNews includes a link to a webinar to be presented on May 14, 2013:
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/848222014
The following are the first three paragraphs of the Executive Summary:
[begin quote]
Both 2011 and 2012 produced a record number of extreme weather events including floods, heat waves, droughts, fires and snowstorms. In 2011, 14 different extreme weather events resulted in damages of more than $1 billion each.1 That trend has shown no signs of abating. In 2012, scorching heat brought widespread drought to more than 65 percent of the country and contributed to raging wildfires in the West that burned more than 9.2 million acres.2,3 On top of that, the arrival of Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 devastated communities along the northeastern seaboard with record-breaking storm surges and historic flooding. In the end, 2012 featured 11 billion-dollar extreme weather disasters, and it was the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S. since record-keeping began in 1895.4
Many extreme weather events as well as warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, increasing ocean acidity and rising sea levels are expected to intensify as climate change continues. In turn, these changes are fundamentally altering our communities and natural resources by threatening public health, affecting water availability and energy production, putting vulnerable homes and infrastructure at risk and jeopardizing vital ecosystems. As carbon pollution continues to contribute to extreme weather, it is critical that states begin planning for a new “normal,” prioritizing climate preparedness in conjunction with improvements to disaster response and recovery.
To address these challenges, many states have begun to take action to reduce the carbon pollu- tion that contributes to climate change and are beginning to prepare for potential climate impacts. More than 35 states have conducted some level of planning to reduce carbon pollution. Despite these and other efforts to reduce the release of heat-trapping pollutants, states already are experiencing the impacts of climate change and need to plan and prepare for the implications of increasingly warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns and rising seas. Only 10 states have developed comprehensive plans to prepare for these climate-related impacts.5 Remarkably, most other states are not planning and remain ill-prepared for the challenges that climate change presents.
[end quote]
In failing to provide your own example, it’s logical to assume you were accepting the one provided by “Box of Rocks” and responding thereto. No backsies.
The Bible is not NOW considered an authoritative source, but it was then. Your incapacity to understand the scientific framework of “then” vs “now” reveals a certain paucity of imagination.
Again with the “inflexibility” meme. You tell me, what emperical evidence did Galileo present, other than his pretty MODEL. That’s right, none. It made celestial calculation easier but he had no proof, direct or indirect (see Focault again) that the sun was the center of the universe. Try setting aside your repugnance at the image of a feeble old man under house arrest for the remainder of his days and consider the exchange on the EVIDENCE. In contrast, dozens of researchers in climate science have provded EVIDENCE for their views. It may be right, wrong, incomplete or misinterpreted but they can point to some corner of the real world as bolstering their theories. Galileo…could…not. That is why, in this case, the Inquisition is not as guilty of inflexibility as the IPCC is.
In future, try keeping logic in your discussion.
D.J. Hawkins:
Your post at April 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm could not be more wrong.
Other than a rant it only says this
Galileo showed that – by use of a telescope he had purchased in the local market – he could observe the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter.
This was direct empirical evidence that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And that was the point of dispute. He had used empirical evidence to show that part of the cosmos did not revolve around the Earth. The doctrine was that the cosmos revolved around the Earth. Whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun was a supplementary point of little importance. Indeed, the movement of Jupiter’s moons was what Galileo meant when he famously said, “But they do move”.
And scientists – then or now – don’t obtain “proof”. They obtain evidence from which they draw conclusions.
No researcher has has provided any evidence for AGW. Santer claimed to have found some in the 1990s but his shenanigans was soon exposed. If you have some then publish it: you will certainly get a Nobel Prize for that!
Richard
richardscourtney says:
April 24, 2013 at 4:54 pm
D.J. Hawkins:
Your post at April 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm could not be more wrong.
……..Galileo showed that – by use of a telescope he had purchased in the local market – he could observe the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter.
This was direct empirical evidence that the Earth was not the center of the universe. And that was the point of dispute. He had used empirical evidence to show that part of the cosmos did not revolve around the Earth. The doctrine was that the cosmos revolved around the Earth. Whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun was a supplementary point of little importance. Indeed, the movement of Jupiter’s moons was what Galileo meant when he famously said, “But they do move”.
And scientists – then or now – don’t obtain “proof”. They obtain evidence from which they draw conclusions.
No researcher has has provided any evidence for AGW. Santer claimed to have found some in the 1990s but his shenanigans was soon exposed. If you have some then publish it: you will certainly get a Nobel Prize for that!
Richard
You give too much credit to the discovery of the Galliean moons for crushing the concept of an Earth-centered cosmos. The Ptolemaic system used a series of epicycles to align theory with reality. As observations became more refined so did the epicycles. It was clumsy and we know now, wrong, but the concept of heavenly bodies orbiting a fixed point in space NOT THE EARTH was well accepted. I find your claim that whether the Earth revolved around the Sun was of “little importance” to be vastly amusing. You clearly don’t understand the controversy as it was framed at that time. And by the way, there’s no evidence for the claim he uttered the phrase “Eppur si muove”. It appears first in an account written 124 years after the fact, and in any event supposedly refered to the earth, not the moons of Jupiter. So you get a twofer; one myth and an erronius factiod in a single non-quote.
I confess to the careless use of the word proof, although an especially keen observer might have noticed the word “evidence” in capitals – twice – shortly thereafter.
On AGW, I had intended to highlight the efforts of the skeptical side of the debate in dealing with “the science is settled” attitude of the IPCC, but find it interesting that, in light of my unintentional ambiguity, you jumped to a conclusion opposite of what was intended. One that isn’t in fact supported by what I actually wrote, since I made no reference to either side of the debate.
D.J. Hawkins said:
April 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm
You tell me, what emperical [sic] evidence did Galileo present, other than his pretty MODEL.
——————————-
Again he inflexibly inserts the subject of Galileo’s evidence. I’ll spell it out for him again: I was lightheartedly comparing the methods of the Inquisition with those of climate science to quash dissent – I was making no statement about the validity of Galileo’s work – he keeps trying to change the subject.
And when the bible was considered an authoritative source is immaterial: to consider it such at any time, within the sphere of science, is a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem.
” That is why, in this case, the Inquisition is not as guilty of inflexibility as the IPCC is.”
heh 🙂
Sorry I fed this tiresome troll folks.