Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times.
Earlier this month, a New York Times article by Andy Revkin voiced concern over a gap between “the consensus” of climate scientists and public acceptance of the theory of human-caused global warming. Revkin pointed to a study published in April by Dr. John Cook and other researchers, which claimed that 97 percent of scientific papers over the last decade “endorsed the consensus” of man-made warming. But is it a failure to communicate the science to the public, or a case of bad science?
A 2010 paper from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University recommended that advocates for activist climate policies emphasize the dangers to the health of citizens: “Successfully reframing the climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values…holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change…” So, if Americans fear for their health, then they’ll more readily accept that humans are causing dangerous climate change?
Climate science has smelled for some time. The 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced “new evidence” claiming that “the increase in temperature in the 20th century was likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years.” This was the famous “Hockey Stick Curve” of Dr. Michael Mann, which became an icon for Climatism, trumpeted to the world and taught in schools across the globe.
But the tree-ring data used by Mann and his research team did not show a temperature rise at the end of the 20th century, so they pasted the thermometer record for the last 50 years onto the 1,000-year curve to provide the alarming hockey stick temperature rise. Later analysis by Stephen McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick found that the Mann algorithm would also produce a hockey stick from input of random noise. The IPCC dropped the Mann Curve from their 2007 Fourth Assessment Report without any explanation.
Then in November 2009 came Climategate, the release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. An unidentified hacker or whistle-blower downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails and posted them on a server in Russia. The CRU is the recognized leading keeper of global temperature data, and CRU scientists wrote and edited the core of the IPCC reports.
The Climategate emails showed CRU practices that were seriously at odds with accepted scientific procedure. Evidence of bias, data manipulation, deliberate deletion of emails to avoid sharing of information, evasion of freedom of information requests, and attempts to subvert the peer-review literature process were all used to further the cause of human-made global warming.
Based on model projections, the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 told the world to expect a “best estimate” rise of 0.3oC per decade in global temperatures, leading to 2025 temperatures that would be 1oC higher than 1990 temperatures. The IPCC also projected a “high estimate” and a “low estimate” rise. Today, global temperatures remain well below the IPCC’s low estimate. Contrary to model projections, temperatures have been flat for the last 15 years.
It doesn’t matter if 97 percent or even 100 percent of published papers endorse the consensus of man-made warming. One hundred percent of the world’s top climate models, 44 models in all, projected a rise in global surface temperatures over the last 15 years. And 100 percent of the climate models were wrong. The empirical data does not support the theory of dangerous man-made climate change.
Since global temperatures are not rising, proponents of man-made climate change are now reduced to weather scaremongering. In the best tradition of ambulance chasing, the recent severe tornado in Oklahoma, Hurricane Sandy, and other weather events are blamed on mankind’s relatively small contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide, a trace gas.
But any citizen who can read can learn that today’s weather is not abnormal. Hurricane Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane that made a direct hit on New York City. But according to the National Climatic Data Center, 170 hurricanes made US landfall during the 20th century. Fifty-nine of these were Category 3 or better, with wind speeds much stronger than those of Sandy. So how is a single Category 1 hurricane “evidence” of dangerous climate change? Historical data also shows that the US experienced more strong tornados in the 1960s and 1970s than today.
The reason for lukewarm public acceptance of the theory of man-made warming is not a failure to communicate, but that the science is rotten.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
The 97% “Consensus” now somewhat hysterically voiced by the Alarmists, is like the result of an election in one of the old Soviet States, Cuba or North Korea. You can vote but there is only one candidate.
As such the “proof” that the idea is sound or that the elected government has a mandate is laughable.
How wonderful to see that the MSM is at last catching up.
If I were the author of one of those papers Mr Cook has appropriated into the consensus, I would would be seeking legal advice.
joeldshore,
How many times has advocate science told us man was causing catastrophic harm to the planet and have been wrong? Ice ages, ozone holes, acid rain and lately CAGW and even second hand smoke. Throw rocks all you like. The IPCC and model predictions have over estimated the effect of CO2 on global temperature and we are now seeing a rapid backpedal of alarmist claims. The climate reaction to 2xCO2 continues to be revised downward in scientific publications and CAGW stalwarts like OHC and extreme weather lack evidence. No worries joeldshore, you can still get all the mis-information of doom and gloom you like over at SKS and Open Minds. Knock yourself out.
It IS a consensus. 100% of the 97% of the 34% will tell you that.
londo says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Would that it were only Climate ‘science’ that is in this state.
As you point out the health ‘science’ is in just as bad a state with unproven claims being daily published. Look at skin cancer and ‘sunshine’ scare leading to lack of vitamin D to the extent that rickets and fragile bones are reappearing (leading incidentally to the false claims of battered babies when it is lack of vitamin D in mother and baby). Butter is now slowly being shown to be more healthy than margarine and full fat milk is better for you than skimmed (watered) milk.
I think that there is a need for ‘Science’ as a whole to step back and take a lesson from the Climate ‘science’ fiasco. If it doesn’t we are going to see the death of the age of enlightenment and a return to superstition wrapped up in marketing led snake-oil salesmen based on focus groups.
The whole concept of “communicating climate science” is a strange one. Communication, among adults anyway, is a two-way street. “Because I said so” may (or may not) work with children, but with adults, not so much. Nor do threats, guilt-trips, bargaining, special pleading, and the whole gamut of psychological manipulations the climatists have attempted using. It works for a while, but then people start to see through it. Media hype only works for so long, particularly with widespread access to the internet, and actual information.
Actually it is a failure to communicate bad science. They jump on every disaster (the latest being MOORE Oklahoma, not Monroe) to say “See! Told you so!”. Yet while their memories are short, most people’s are not. And they remember the same weather even when the alarmism was not in vogue.
They are basically proving themselves wrong. Give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves with it.
The merits of evolution aren’t the point. The point is that the opposition has a reason to oppose it. They are threatened by its implications. Some of them also make their living opposing it. The author of this shoddy article(it reads like the hockey stick died in 2006 ffs) is employed by people with a financial and political motivation to oppose the veracity of climate science. Even Anthony, when asked what bothered him the most about the mainstream view of climate, replied that he disliked the policy ideas flowing from it. You don’t see a large, motivated opposition to string theory battling it out in US newspapers. Why? Because nobody is scared of its implications.
@Patrick Guinness Frank:
“It’s like Astrology decorated with linear algebra”
There’s one to pin on the wall!
Ryan says:
May 30, 2013 at 4:48 am
The point is that the opposition has a reason to oppose it. They are threatened by its implications.
Your use of the fallacious ad hominem argument is typical of trolls. Climate “science” is shoddy, and in some cases, could be called fraudulent. This has been shown time and time again. But, if you want to get into motivations, what do you suppose is motivating climate scientists? Let me give you a hint; whole careers, and continued funding are based on them being right. Now that the whole basis of Alarmism has been exposed and is being undermined by reality, the big climb-down has begun. They know what’s coming, and are doing their best to escape it.
“Is it a failure to communicate, or faulty climate science?”
I, too, would call it a failure to communicate faulty climate science.
Unfortunately it hasn’t been a complete failure.
Rud Istvan says:
May 29, 2013 at 6:33 pm (Edit)
Eliza, hope you are right, but expect you are wrong. Too much financial inertia. Fight against!
—————————————————————————————————-
Yes indeed, wind power, solar power, decarbonisation, carbon credit trading, NGO’s pushing schemes in the hapless third world etc. etc. Add to that the time it will take the politicians and pundits to change their stance without losing face. Oh, and the insane folk who know nothing about the science but howl on the comments of any online article about AGW.
I would give it two to five more years for it to vanish completely. Remember in “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds ” the collective goes mad all together at once yet return to their senses one at a time over months.
joeldshore:
The IPCC projection from the 1990 FAR, first page of the Executive Summary, is straightforward:
“Based on current model results, we predict:
under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before the end of the century.”
>Ryan says:
May 30, 2013 at 4:48 am
Ryan, you’ve not presented a single refutation of the points made in the OP. But if you want to sit out there on your dead, rotting limb- fine.
E.M.Smith says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:37 pm (Edit)
—————————————————–
I don’t understand why Christian fundamentalists are unable to accept that evolution could be part of “His” great plan and move forward.
Steve Goreham got me interested in the changing climate issue. Thank You. I am now more informed and a lot dumber than I thought I was. The desire for the powerful to dominant the weak is on full display in climatism.
@joel Shore:
AGW True believers love to tell themselves this – it’s staggering! From here I see far more parallels between the arguments and tactics of the creationist community and AGW alarmists than sceptics – see furious back-pedalling, focus on irrelevant details as a diversionary tactic, changes of argument and shifting of initial premise when confronted with inconsistency, evidence presented boiling down to a matter of faith (models programmed with unfounded assumptions), failure to bring forth any physical evidence, reliance on ad hominem, clustering together in cliques that can act as a self-reinforcing echo-chamber and so on..
For confirmation of the above, please see your own post. You start off by claiming that the IPCC in their first report said what they did not say, then you justify it by pointing out that far later, when their initial predictions proved to rest on shaky ground, they began to change their argument. And this means their initial predictions were right? And what does it matter if the article uses a graph sourced from someone who decided to call them out on this? Reading your arguments is like playing a game of three-shells-and-a-pea. The entire point of this article is to demonstrate that historically, the science of AGW has been bad. Pointing out the fact that AGW arguments have merely metamorphosed over time when falsified or proven to be baseless serves to reinforce, rather than overturn this point of view.
So the models are there to reproduce the biases and inaccuracies inherent in the surface temperature data rather than model average global temperatures! Your claim that alignment between satellite data and model predictions is ‘questionable’ is meaningless. What is genuinely questionable is how a sane and intelligent being can believe that the more you average computer simulations, the closer you get to reality. Kind of reminds me of illusionist Derren Brown’s conceit that he could get a hundred people to predict lottery results, average predictions and arrive at the correct number! Anyway, lest I be accused of a Gish Gallop, how about a proper criticism of Spencer / Christy’s methodology, written in layman’s terms, that does not consist of ‘it’s wrong because someone else did if differently’, or ‘it’s wrong because I don’t like what it says’?
🙂
One hundred percent of the world’s top climate models, 44 models in all, projected a rise in global surface temperatures over the last 15 years. And 100 percent of the climate models were wrong.
I guess that the alarmists will now say that it’s reality that is wrong and that the models are correct. Or maybe they can simply redefine reality as “what I really, really believe”.
joeldshore says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Where have we heard this “bad science” claim to justify ignoring the majority of the scientists in favor of a minority of ideologically-driven dissenters? Maybe places like here: http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/evolute.htm ?
Congratulations, joel, on your skillful use of four logical fallacies in your opening salvo:
Appeal to Consensus
Appeal to Authority
Ad Hominem Argument
Association fallacy
Keep up the good work!
Ryan says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:10 pm
“A large fraction of the public also used to doubt the cancer-cigarette link and currently doubts the theory of evolution. Is that because the science is weak or is it because there is an organized and well-funded and/or motivated opposition to the implications of the science?”
What, Ryan, does that have to do with anything? A scientific theory does not become valid because a theory in a completely unrelated field faces opposition.
A large fraction of the public does not have the faintest clue about logical thinking.
“Keitho says:
May 30, 2013 at 6:27 am”
Christians do. If we take “Lucy” and “God”, in Ethiopia Christians, literally, lay side-by-side with Lucy. And yet, in Australia, we find a “missing” 150 million year old tree!
Well, they probably will, but shouldn’t. All you’ve said (about the origin of life) is, “We don’t know.” Isn’t that the proper attitude of—even the inspiration for—science? And it has been said that wonder is the primary religious impulse. But I guess for some, even some ‘scientists’, it is blind belief in whatever ‘consensus’ they subscribe to.
/Mr Lynn
“Successfully reframing the climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values…holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change…”
Well, if they try this they are on a big loser. ALL evidence points to cold being a bigger killer than warm, and in fact we’ve not yet warmed to the same levels as the Medieval Climate Optimum yet.
If they do try to promote this alarmist drivel, they will quickly be shot down in flames.
Ryan says:
May 30, 2013 at 4:48 am
“You don’t see a large, motivated opposition to string theory battling it out in US newspapers. Why? Because nobody is scared of its implications.”
You talk as if most US newspapers were not a tightly controlled progressive socialist bloc.
Not really related to the article posted above, but since it’s been discussed in the comments, I’ll simply add that I find no point of contention between the theory of evolution and my belief in a higher power. Although as a scientist/engineer, I do have issues with how the word “theory” is bandied about. You observe. You hypothesize. You test repeatedly. At some point, you have enough information to form a hypothesis, which by definition must be falsifiable. Except for obvious examples of microevolution, I’ve seen no tests performed nor any admission that evolution is at all falsifiable, which makes it weak science, in my opinion. Is there a fossil record? Yes. Do the fossils increase in complexity over time? Without a doubt. Is there any clear evidence, or any way to test, how such extensive speciation occurred from the appearance of the first single-celled organism? The answer is a big fat no. Also, no provable answer exists for the origin of life, which is outside the realm of evolution.
Back to the topic at hand: mocking the alarmist true believers. I swear that if St. Louis were being ground to dust under a mile deep glacier that they’d still be prophesying that we were all about to burn up. Facts, data, reality: a Jedi AGW alarmist craves not these things.