By Larry Kummer, from the Fabius Maximus website
Summary: The social science literature about climate change includes many oddities. A new hot paper about climate denial adds to that list, and illustrates why the climate policy debate has become gridlocked.
Another social science study of climate deniers makes waves on the Left: “Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt” by Constantine Boussalis and Travis G. Coan in the highly-ranked journal Global Environmental Change, January 2016. The abstract reads like real news…
“…This study contributes to the literature on organized climate scepticism by providing the first systematic overview of conservative think tank sceptical discourse in nearly 15 years. Specifically, we
1. compile the largest corpus of contrarian literature to date, collecting over 16,000 documents from 19 organizations over the period 1998–2013;
2. introduce a methodology to measure key themes in the corpus which scales to the substantial increase in content generated by conservative think tanks over the past decade; and
3. leverage this new methodology to shed light on the relative prevalence of science- and policy-related discussion among conservative think tanks.”
“We find little support for the claim that “the era of science denial is over” — instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period.”
The authors execute these goals described in the three bullets with detail and skill. From which they draw the conclusion of the last sentence. But their evidence provides little support for that conclusion; it is almost irrelevant to it. They state their conclusions in more detail. …
1. “The overall level of CTT {conservative think tank} information has grown rapidly over the past decade and a half, reaching a peak during late 2009-early 2010.
2. Topics questioning the integrity of individual scientists and scientific bodies appear closer (semantically) to politics than science, suggesting that claims often consider the hallmark of scientific skepticism are rooted in politics.
3. The era of climate science denial is not over. …
4. CTTs tend to react to the external environment — i.e., they counter claims …”
They provide strong evidence and analysis for their first, second, and fourth conclusions. This post discusses the third. Citations are omitted from the following quotations.
A strong opening followed by a quick shift to denialism
“Climate scientists overwhelming agree that the Earth is getting warmer and that the rise in average global temperature is predominantly due to human activity. Yet a sizeable segment of the American public rejects this “consensus view” and U.S. climate policy remains in a state of limbo. As of early 2015, 1/3 of the American public believes that climate change is not primarily caused by human activity and only 1 in 10 understands that more than 90% of climate scientists agree on the existence and nature of observed global warming. What explains this divergence in views among climate scientists and the American public? What factors promote inaction on comprehensive climate change mitigation policy? These questions have garnered considerable attention in disciplines across the social and behavioural sciences.”
The authors then quickly steer onto the rocks. In the first three pages they say …
· “One prominent explanation investigates the influence of a “well-funded and relatively coordinated ‘denial machine’” in shaping the public’s understanding of climate science. …
· Specifically, the environmental movement is viewed as promoting social change, the denial countermovement is viewed as preserving the status quo …
· Viewed largely as an extension of the conservative movement in the U.S., organized climate denial was born out of the deep pockets of conservative foundations and corporate interest groups committed to promoting free-market principles and rolling back government intervention in all aspects of the economy …
· It is within the shift from direct to indirect challenges to environmental policy that the full importance of CTTs in the denial countermovement comes into view.
· … as the engine of information in the “denial machine,” CTTs are the agents actually responsible for “framing the field” of AGW. Communications research repeatedly emphasizes the sensitivity …
· As such, CTTs arguably provide the ‘“connective tissue’ that helps hold the denial countermovement together”. …
· CTTs transform this material base into information, generating the narrative of climate denial; …
· Nevertheless, despite a general understanding, considerably more research is needed to fully specify the linkages between key actors in the denial countermovement and longitudinal data is necessary to test dynamic theories of organized climate scepticism.”
This is powerful but devoid of meaning since the paper never defines “denial”. The literal meaning of “denying” science or “denying” climate change constitutes serious but easy to prove changes (perhaps libelous if made without evidence). Silence on this key point is inexplicable. Where were the reviewers? (For more about defining “denial” see this note.)
The closest they come to a description is the following, paraphrasing “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims” by Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap in Social Problems, November 2000 (ungated copy) …
“Overall, the analysis suggests that climate scepticism during this period {1996 and 1997} centred on three major counter-claims:
1. the evidentiary basis of global warming is weak or wrong,
2. global warming would be beneficial if it was to occur, and
3. global warming policies would do more harm than good.”
This is low-grade science. Look at the first item. Global warming is not a binary condition, and it exists as past warming (data) and future warming (forecasts). The coding system McCright and Dunlap ignores both factors. It does not distinguish between questioning data (the magnitude of past warming, including pre-instrument data) and forecasts (the likelihood and magnitude of forecasted future warming).
McCright and Dunlap give brief quotes, but name only the source — no date, title, or URL to allow verification. The quotes lack any context; readers cannot tell if they refer to past warming over millennia, centuries, or specific decades of the past or future. Without that we do not know if this is “flat earth” pseudoscience or a discussion of cutting-edge forecasts of models. Whatever the physical scientific basis of the conservatives cited, McCright and Dunlap give us sloppy social science.
Boussalis and Coan do “Topic Interpretation”
They give little evidence supporting their conclusions about climate “denial”. Their elaborate data collection produces no data of such specificity.
They provide a small number of quotes, but often in misleading fashion. For example they give an excerpt from “Temperatures Flat Despite Record Rise in Emissions” by James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute, 11 November 2011 — carefully sculpted to look wrong. Here is a better excerpt (in no rational sense is this denial of science or warming).
“In light of the 2010 emissions data, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by fully a third since the year 2001, yet global temperatures have not risen over the past decade. Global warming activists contend carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary factor in global temperature changes, yet global temperatures show no change despite a 33% increase in global carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that global temperatures are not rising despite such a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions provides validation of skeptical arguments, not a cause for heightened alarm.
“… The real-world disconnect between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures is one of the factors that argues strongly against such a scenario, however. Temperatures have risen merely 0.2 to 0.3°C during the past third of a century and have not risen at all during the past decade.”
They also quote statements “challenging the agreement of scientists” that “emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is leading to a rise in global temperatures”. For example, this from “You Call This Consensus?” by Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute, 7 July 2011. It is accurate; the authors imply but do not show otherwise.
“Contrary to what you read repeatedly in daily newspapers or hear on television, most scientists do not believe there is a “scientific consensus” that man-made climate change (often labeled anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is or will be a catastrophe. … It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing) and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact …”
The headline IPCC statement — the subject of so many surveys proving almost total concurrence by climate scientists — concerns anthropogenic warming since 1950. Are there any studies showing a consensus of climate scientists about the likelihood of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
Also, the authors appear unaware of the peer-review literature about past climate change, as when they cite these as evidence of conservative’s denial machine in action …
“Appeals to long-term natural cycles in temperature, as purportedly demonstrated by the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, are also common.”
“Many documents also suggest alternative climate forcing inputs such as the sun or cosmic rays.”
They do not give an example. However, the Roman and Medieval Warm periods are historical fact, although the sparse temperature record has prevented definitive determination of their geographic scope.
As for the sun, there is a large peer-reviewed literature suggesting that it has a large effect on climate (see the papers listed in section 7), although AR5 gives it little credence (“There is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing estimates, but there is high confidence that the TSI RF variations will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG during the forthcoming decades.).
This tour has only covered the first four pages, with five more to go. However these give a representative view of the paper’s methods and accuracy.
A last note: about sources
The authors cite a wide range of sources, including activists’ publications (e.g. of the Union of Concerned Scientists, mostly non-scientists) and their websites — such as Skeptical Science, despite its history of providing false information (example here). Typical of their sources is “Organized Climate Change Denial” by Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society
(2011, copy here). It is a literature review (as usual, citing many papers by activist groups).
Conclusions
“The era of climate science denial is not over.”
Boussalis and Coan make four conclusions, but their finding of “science denial” gets the most attention — deservedly so. They identify climate denial by reasoning which is little more than organized prejudice, an inexplicable oversight of the reviewers. Perhaps their conclusion about “denial” is correct, but they make little effort to prove it.
This is yet another of the obviously weak social science studies about climate denial that shape the minds of people on the Left. They like the conclusions and applaud. Criticism from the Right is ignored, presumed inherently invalid — as the authors do with conservatives’ writings in this study.
This is epistemic closure (an extreme form of confirmation bias working within a community), dominating their thinking, as it so often does on the Right. It shows the common culture of Americans, and our blindness — as each sees this in their foes, but not in themselves.
About the authors
Constantine Boussalis is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Trinity College Dublin (personal website here) and holds a Ph.D. in political science. Travis G. Coan is a statistician and Lecturer at Harvard Law School; he has a Ph.D. in political science (C.V. here).
Note: about 24 hours after publication, the names Boussalis and Coan were corrected in six places in the text to remove an “a” and “b” that were attached to their names from a copy/paste of their names from the paper title which carried their affiliation references as superscripts “a” and “b” on their names.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. compile the largest corpus of contrarian literature to date….
Here’s contrarian literature….We’ve been told for over 30 years…….
we’re all going to die in I year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years
Tipping point in 1 year, 5 years, 10 20 years
Last chance in 1, 5, 10, 20 years
Global warming, climate change, irritable climate syndorne
cold, warm, hot, wet, dry, drought, flood, snow, fires, and earth quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and duck eggs
and on and on and on….
No right minded person would even listen any more……..
The boys who cried “Warmth!”. 😎
Interesting from a marketing and persuasion point of view.
Mark
http://minimalistlifestyle.WordPress.com
Putting forth a psychological speculation as to why one’s opponent holds to his point of view is easier than refuting his reasons for it, and will usually garner the support of a large share of one’s audience, in particular the stupid and the corrupt among them.
An all purpose type of “appeal to authority” with psychological speculation the “authority” regardless of the subject?
The political framing of calling those who don’t believe in AGW as ‘deniers’ and ‘sceptics’ is really a misrepresentation of what most people believe. I am hoping someday will can be defined by our terms and not theirs. I and an overwhelming amount of people believe in global warming. It has been going on for hundreds of years. AGW is just insignificant. I prefer to be called a climate realist.
Climate scientists overwhelming agree that the Earth is getting warmer and that the rise in average global temperature is predominantly due to human activity.
but no evidence that climate change is related to fossil fuel emissions.
https://youtu.be/vUvLoE5v0yQ
The “social sciences” are not sciences and never were. They are not an organized body of knowledge that explain human behavior and can predict how people or societies will act. These idiots are merely a reactionary rear guard riding on the coattails of retreating “Climate Scientists” who are hardly better than them. It’s almost not worth our efforts to pay any attention to them.
The “social sciences” are not sciences and never were.
As an engineer who had exactly the same opinion as you I did a degree in social science out of curiosity. As a result I discovered that it was far more organised and scientific than the few miserable apologies for social science that seemed to get headline publicity like this piece. One particular exercise in social science was to produce the most stupid correlation between cause and effect to underline that correlation in itself means nothing. This was won by a student who proved conclusively that AIDS was caused by driving Toyota Landcruisers as sales increases perfectly matched the rise in AIDS in one African country.
When I found data while running some tests on resistance to interception on military equipment in East Anglia I picked up some files giving some highly disturbing insights on the work of climate scientists. I started to examine the work. Legal reasons prevented any copies or distribution of this data given the way it was acquired. Unlike the study that ultimately led to my social science degree I found the climate files files were the tip of an iceberg in shady dealing and data manipulation that even the worst cowboy building company would shun as unethical.
the most stupid correlation
===============
indeed, it was the social science that pointed out the statistical problems with “selection on the dependent variable” that revealed the problems with “tree ring calibration”.
Many climate studies are based on selecting those tree rings and other proxies that correlate strongly with modern temperatures. From this many statistical results are derived, such as the hockey stick.
However, statistics assumes that the tree rings are random. As soon as you start selecting based on a non-random criteria your statistical results are garbage. However, because it “seems logical” climate science continues this bogus statistical (calibration) method to this day.
Google: selection on the dependent variable
lost and lots of soft science now understand the problem. However, Climate Science still ignores it.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/11/19/dont-select-on-the-dependent-variable-in-studying-the-scienc.html
http://gabrielr.bol.ucla.edu/soc210a_f09/w9.pdf
http://poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/pitfalls.html
for example:
http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/13/selection-bias/
“But it still sounds as though these books commit a serious social-science sin – “selecting on the dependent variable.”
What does this mean? Social scientists tend to believe that if you want to find out if a causes b by studying different cases, you need to be quite careful in choosing the cases. For example, if you want to argue that risk taking leads to business success, you want to look at cases of firms that are risk takers, and firms that are risk averse, and you also want to have cases of firms that are successful, and cases of firms that are failures. If you only study successful risk-taking firms, you’re cooking the books. It could be that there are many more risk-taking firms that are failures out there than successes – but because you’ve only chosen to look at the successes, you have no way of knowing this. You can thus end up providing pretty bad advice.”
Ferd,
Thanks for this explanation and the links. I was dimly aware of this problem, but these nicely highlight it!
“McCright and Dunlap give us sloppy social science …”.
==================================
The phrase “sloppy social science” is simultaneously tautologic and oxymoronic (wooden iron).
Of course it’s sloppy, it’s scientism i.e. an ‘ attempt to apply “hard science” methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described … as being impossible’ (Wiki).
It’s no wonder the ’social science’ faculties are turning out hordes of unemployable leftist statist nitwits (see previous post Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media).
As for so-called “epistemic closure” (closed systems of deduction, unaffected by empirical evidence …Wiki), that eloquently describes only one side of the debate, the alarmist side.
… closed system of deduction unaffected by empirical evidence:
?w=720
Sounds like a confidence game to me.
Person hiding behind a title for no apparent reason,
Larry Kummer writes;
“The social science literature about climate change includes many oddities. A new hot paper about climate denial adds to that list, and illustrates why the climate policy debate has become gridlocked.”
Assuming you are Mr. Kummer (which is totally asinine of you to make uncertain in any sense, as far as I’m concerned), I have read several of your posts here and am made extremely suspicious by your repeated use of what to me is blatant propaganda lingo, about a “public policy debate” that is “gridlocked”. There is no such gridlock I am aware of, in reality-land, unless one considers the CAGW clan/gang not getting everything they want; “gridlock”.
Can you, (in regular English, not mass media double-talk) tell us what the hell is wrong with citizens doing whatever we can to slow.stop what to me is a blatantly obvious power grabbing/control freak agenda for as long as we possibly can? Why are you trying to make it seem like “we” have done something wrong, by not just rolling over and shutting up, so the power grabbers can get on with their agenda?
Dear “Mr. Knight” (or whoever you reallyare),
“I have read several of your posts here .. There is no such gridlock I am aware of,”
I’ve mentioned this in most posts, and repeatedly in threads. But to repeat again: the public policy debate has locked to the extent that we’re unprepared for the almost certain repeat of past weather, let alone almost certain kinds of climate change (e.g., sea levels rising as they have been for a long time).
To mention one example: tropical storm Sandy proved the vulnerability of many (most? all?) East coast cities to storms — let alone a cat 3 hurricane. It’s a core national security issue. There is no excuse for this bipartisan failure.
“what the hell is wrong with citizens doing whatever we can to slow.stop what to me is a blatantly obvious power grabbing/control freak agenda for as long as we possibly can?”
Rant much? Try responding with quotes, so readers know what you’re questioning.
“… tropical storm Sandy proved the vulnerability of many (most? all?) East coast cities to storms — let alone a cat 3 hurricane. It’s a core national security issue. There is no excuse for this bipartisan failure …”.
=========================================
That’s an example of the ambiguity which the ‘Editor of the Fabius Maximus website’ employs in his posts here to muddy the waters — what does he mean?
Does he mean that the way to manage climate risks like tropical storms is to carry out coastal engineering projects and the like or to employ apotropaic magic by cover hillsides with thousands of windmills?
Is there any chance of a clear unequivocal statement?
Chris,
Cities have prepared for storms for centuries. In NYC that would mean primarily sea walls to keep out storm surge, drainage to remove the rainfall, and other engineering to protect vital below-ground infrastructure (e.g., subways, power stations).
I did not spell this out because it is obvious. I am confident that almost all WUWT readers know this already.
But obviously not all.
In NYC that would mean primarily sea walls to keep out storm surge
==========================
Absolutely. However, the Executive Branch of the US government would have you believe that coal plant’s are responsible for storm surge, and if we get rid of them their will be no need to build sea walls.
This is the delusional thinking that the American People reject, because they can see it for the nonsense it is. Instead of building seawalls governments are instead building excuses. They are trying to shift the blame for government inaction to The People having caused the problem by driving cars and heating their houses.
It is all about pointing the finger. And in the US the executive branch blames everyone else but themselves for their failures. “The buck stops here” appears nowhere in current US policy. Everyone else is to blame has become formal US policy.
Fred,
“Everyone else is to blame has become formal US policy.”
Yes. In the people as well as our leaders. Here just as on the activist blogs. Not much interest in finding solutions, just “winning”. The essence of gridlock, in traffic as well as policy.
It might a nice epitaph of America’s role as a great nation: “it wasn’t my fault.”
“I did not spell this out because it is obvious. I am confident that almost all WUWT readers know this already.
But obviously not all …”.
===================
Dear ‘Editor of the Fabius Maximus website’, regarding the public policy prescriptions to address future climate change, googling ‘obama + climate change + national security’ delivers 17,700,000 results like:
# President Obama will say the global change in climate will pose a direct threat to our military in a commencement address Wednesday …
# Obama’s Top Environmental Official on the Paris Attacks and Why Climate Change Threatens National Security …
# Obama Says Climate Change Endangers National Security …
# 22 Times Obama Admin Declared Climate Change a Greater Threat than terrorism …
# Remarks on Climate Change and National Security. … Climate change adaptation is a key pillar of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, and …
It is not obvious, President Obama is using national security as a cover to introduce ‘climate change regulations and taxes by fiat — you know that, your response was disingenuous.
Chris,
That Obama talks about national security does not make all mentions of national security invalid.
I’m done with you. Rant away.
That’s OK Mr Editor, I look forward to trying to unravel the obscurantism, tangled reasoning and deliberate amphibology of future posts from the ‘Editor of the Fabius Maximus website’
Here in the US the media generally use the term “gridlock” when Republicans have stopped the Democrats from doing something. The impression they are trying to give is that “gridlock” is bad.
If we were on a battlefield and the aggressor launched an attack to take what is yours, “gridlock” would only be a bad thing to the aggressor.
Would this be the same media that defines “bi-partisanship” as Republicans and Democrats working together to pass the Democrat agenda?
Collectivist,
“To mention one example: tropical storm Sandy proved the vulnerability of many (most? all?) East coast cities to storms — let alone a cat 3 hurricane. It’s a core national security issue. There is no excuse for this bipartisan failure”
What about the failure of the Government/citizens of New York city/state to prepare themselves for such storms?
What reason ought any city do anyth9ing to prepare for anything, if by not doing so they can get collectivists like you to shake-down the rest of us for cash to protect them, while accusing us of locking some dopey imaginary grid if we don’t fork over the money without complaint?
You are a con artist, it seems to me, pimping for the NWO globalists/elitists.
Somewhat on topic, to be juxtaposed against the consensus claims.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/news/17800-study-reveals-the-problem-with-overwhelming-evidence.
“In a study to be published in The Proceedings of The Royal Society A, researchers found that unanimity should raise questions in situations where there is a lot of prior uncertainty.” and
“It seems counter-intuitive, it seems that defies logic, but it’s also saying that perhaps if everybody is in total agreement there’s been a collusion or a bias so you have to be careful of that.”
Colin,
Thanks for posting a link to that interesting paper. No danger of unanimity in climate science. The IPCC’s AR5 gives only moderate certainty to most findings.
To take just one hot issue — I have listed 50+ papers about the cause(s) of the pause. They fall into 12 broad groups. Few agree with each other except in broad outline.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/01/17/climate-change-global-warming-62141/
There is similar debate among climate scientists on scores of other key issues, such as the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.
Surveys — many of them — find near unanimity about the headline finding of AR5, which is a simple statement about the past. Beyond that it’s the wild west of theories.
Enough. “Mr. Editor” (or whoever you are) you and your posting are a waste of time.
Larry, you describe what never appears in the public media.
I was referring to:
* the science is settled;
* the greatest moral issue of our time;
* 97% of scientists agree;
* various attempts at muzzling dissenting opinion;
* Climategate revelations of corruption of peer review.
Colin,
That’s an important point! I was looking at the actual state of climate science, which has vigorous debate (as usual, within the “ruling” paradigm”).
As you note, the public does not see that, as many journalists and activists work to create a facade of consensus — far beyond what actually exists.
It has been skillfully done. Still, the climate change policy campaign has largely failed.
But it is like an insurgency: they need only win once. That is their remaining hope, I believe. One big extreme weather event that they successfully blame on global warming — and they panic people into supporting their proposals.
People who have billions in funding complain that people who have thousands in funding can still be heard.
Merovign,
That’s it. You hit the nail dead center.
@Bill Partin:
The ‘editor’ is right, especially re: sensitivity to CO2. That’s a key issue.
If we had a verifiable measurement of AGW, the question of the ‘climate sensitivity number’ to CO2 would be answered. Then everything else would fall into place: accurate temperature predictions could be made. Human CO2 emissions could be translated into rising global temperature numbers, and so on.
But there are no measurements quantifying the sensitivity number. No one has produced any measurements of AGW, despite the huge carrot of a Nobel Prize, and despite thousands of scientists searching for many decades.
Conclusion: either AGW doesn’t exist (personally I disagree with that), or AGW is so minuscule that it can’t be measured.
Either way, AGW doesn’t matter, does it?
(And to be fair — and probably hated — equally by both sides, I agree with ‘JohnKnight’s’ last comment.)
I also “agree with ‘JohnKnight’s’ last comment” but I already am hated by ‘both sides’.
Richard
@dbstealey and richardscourtney –
It should be noted that some people on at least one of the sides
actually like you.
A little.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
Who funds these people to deliver such useless tripe? Surely there are enough big issues in political “sciences” that warrant their attention, like overcoming inter-generational unemployment. Oh wait, one’s from Dublin, the other Harvard, no doubt they got value out of their international collaboration (and travel)?
The left has taken over academia. Willful ignorance maintains group think and is now much admired in academic circles. It is indeed a difficult task to maintain a socially required belief while being assaulted on all sides by facts — and those who can do it best are marked for reward and academic advancement.
Most of the academic left would fit in perfectly in North Korea.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene,
“The left has taken over academia.”
You raise an important point beyond the scope of this post: how this kind of work arises, and what allows it to proliferate (since it is easily punctured). The social sciences in academia has become a monoculture (but not academia as a whole, as the physical sciences and engineering remain more politically diverse), so groupthink rules.
It’s a problem made worse by modern tech, allowing insular online “communities” to develop. Some skeptics websites have become like that, with a narrow and rigid view — closed. WUWT is not, probably due to Anthony’s efforts and the wide range of commenters.
The public is not reading pro-denial propaganda well funded by anything or anyone. The public is beginning to notice that the Alarmist message is not backed by real data, is irrational and extremist, is aimed at removing money from the public to fund crazy schemes, and is not in the public interest.
Denialism commands no headlines in Media, has no newspaper, radio or TV ads, People are just, on the whole, not that stupid that they believe in the Alarmist rubbish.
Especially if they consider the source!
“Nevertheless, despite a general understanding, considerably more research is needed to fully specify the linkages between key actors in the denial countermovement…”
They seem very confident of the conclusions they have derived from just a “general understanding.” So if they’re so sure of their conclusions, why is “considerably more research” needed? Obviously, they’re biases have convinced them they’re right before they’ve bothered to gather any real evidence. But how could they get such a paper published when it is so heavy on opinion and speculation and so light on reliable data? It must be that the reviewers shared the same biases. They’re doing the same thing they accuse conservative think tanks of doing. They refuse to think outside of their echo chamber. Is this what science has become now, an opinion popularity contest? If you win by getting the most votes, then science has become nothing more than a beauty pageant.
Louis:
I write to support and draw attention to your fine post.
I refer you to my above post in support of the excellent point made by davidmhoffer.
Richard
Louis the ONLY way to get such papers published in most journals is to toe the AGW line. It doesn’t matter how good your work is if you don’t do so it will be rejected. You only have to read the Climategate emails to see how much pressure was put on dissenters to supress contradictory work.
The classic example is the email from Johnathan Overpeck to Keith Briffa where he says
“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. ”
The fact that the warm periods have been proven to exist in thousands of peer reviewed papers is irrelevant as its not ‘helpful to the cause’ so they are conveniently dismissed as myths.
Louis,
Dang, screwed up the blockquotes.
AGW is difficult to defend in terms of the actual science that is involved. There is no real evidence that CO2 affects climate. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere
=====================
that is precisely the problem. global warming cannot occur without affecting the lapse rate, because the lapse rate directly ties the surface temperature to the amount of energy received from the sun. thus the name change from global warming to climate change, removing the word “global”.
A couple of definitions of science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Since every definition of science incorporates the idea of through observation and experiment it is not that I deny climate science it is that I reject that the self styled climate scientists have earned the right to be considered as such. As a qualified social scientist as well as electronics engineer I would consider this work to be junk pseudo social science that is totally politically motivated. It would miserably fail everything I was taught in my course. It should not be considered as typical of that discipline.
I also consider that since climate scientists are first tested on CO2 based climate change their value as a judge of the validity is near zero. I think that anyone who answers climate change questions in an exam with the response that since the temperature data analysis methods fail to meet even the lowest grade engineering standards the theory is by definition junk status will get sufficiently good marks to get any science grant and therefore is excluded from the definition of climate scientist. I do not deny the existence of climate science merely that it is the province of self proven non scientists.
David Cage:
I completely agree with this and previous posts. My observation is that persons with more education, broader and more versatile experience never attack with statements like “sociology is not science” or “PhD in political science – science is in the title only”. All of us who put effort in receiving PhD and who has experience as a scientist have a great respect and understanding. I have no doubt that Dr. Mann, Dr. Shukla, Dr. Schmidt, and these two fine scientists who’s work we discuss are highly educated and very smart individuals who deserved their degrees. What is wrong is that their moral compass is off, as well as the compasses of the overwhelming majority of scientists. All sciences are corrupt as never before. Only few scientists acknowledge this corruption. And also, their acknowledgments always come too late (when they retire and when they are old) and in a form that looks more like a runt rather constructive program. I believe this corruption is a consequence of the corrupt system of science funding. One of the major flaws is that the selection criteria include “usefulness” of the research. NSF, for example, calls it “greater impact”. From the history of science we all know that scientists practically never know what would be use, impact, benefit, or profit of their research. But the system forces them to lie and majority of them do by proposing armageddon, nano-, femto-, atto-, ultra-, dark-, string-, bigbang-, denier type research that will produce results of unprecedented practical importance. Look at these two poor souls that we discuss – one is Assistant Professor and another is Lecturer… Both are probably non-tenured, young and are they in any position to contradict to “90% consensus”? Even older, tenured faculty don’t dare not to comply with the corrupt system since, though they will keep their jobs, they will lose funding, students, respect of colleagues. Whole system for funding of fundamental sciences (including sociology and political sciences that are sciences after all) must be scrapped and replaced with a new system that is corruption resistant. I have no idea of what these new system could be…
It is very telling that they equate ‘Denial’ with challenging the evidence for AGW. When I went to college skepticism and challenging the accepted ‘truths’ were considered a vital part of the scientific method but then of course we engineers were rather scathing about the ‘social sciences’
Either you attended college 50+ years ago, or the professors were just pretending to create critically thinking environment. Academia was always rather conservative such that critique and new concepts had to fight way in. However, with current funding system this conservativism turned into corrupt clique rule. The funding distribution is such that any scientist must belong to a clique, hence, no free thinking anymore. Additionally, concept of spiral (dialectic) progress of knowledge when we return to reexamining and modifying or rejecting scientific concepts (including foundational concepts) was substituted with concept of linear upward development in which previously established and accepted concepts are forever adequate – no reexamination is needed or allowed.
“Climate scientists overwhelming agree that the Earth is getting warmer…”
There is the root of the problem. Starting with a falsehood, moving on to slander anybody that can’t accept the falsehood.
“and only 1 in 10 understands that more than 90% of climate scientists agree on the existence”
Typical CAGW propaganda. Goebbels would be proud of them.
“Climate scientists overwhelming agree that the Earth is getting warmer…”
=======================================
The problem is that the authors of the paper assume that “contrarians” don’t agree the earth is getting warmer.
The facts are that everyone agrees that the Earth has gotten warmer since the end of the LIA. What people are disagreeing over is what is causing the warming. Is the warming naturally cause, just like the cooling during the LIA (a natural cycle), or is it something else.
The problem is that almost no Climate Scientists in the past 40 years has studied natural climate change. Everyone has been busy with the IPCC which deals exclusively with Human caused cliamte change.
And since no one has been studying natural climate change no one can reliably tell us how much climate change is natural and how much is man-made. Instead we have nothing more than guess work. Which is not science, it is belief.
More research is obviously needed to keep the authors in wages for another year or two. Duh
a Ph.D. in political science.
As they say, if it has ‘science’ in the title then it is not science.
You mean like ” Scientology ” ?? LOL
Richard Dawkins once made a comment that Scientology, because it had science in the name was possibly worthy of being an acceptable (to him) religion until he investigated and found the “science” part came from “science fiction” of a rather low standard.
“We find little support for the claim that “the era of science denial is over”
What an utterly ridiculous statement to make in what they want us to believe to be a serious paper. Who on earth ever claimed that “the era of science denial is over?”
“90% of climate scientists agree on the existence and nature of observed global warming.”
Why do these silly people regurgitate false statistics that have been proven to be totally inaccurate by so many real research bodies? But we don’t have to look far to find the real reason behind their endless spewing of false data:
“considerably more research is needed ……”
“…illustrates why the climate policy debate has become gridlocked.”
The idea that we even need to have a “climate policy” is ludicrous. It boils down to arguing about the weather, and how “we” should respond to it, and any relatively long-term fluctuations. But those are local or regional concerns, not national. California has to decide what it wants to do regarding periods of drought, not whine to the rest of us and try to play the blame game.
…A liberals favorite saying….” It’s everybody elses fault ” !!
Bruce,
“The idea that we even need to have a “climate policy” is ludicrous.”
You are conflating “climate” (as in “climate policy”) with “climate change” (as in policy to prepare for climate change”).
Any civilization needs to prepare for the hazards of its climate. That is a national security priority. This means preparing for the almost inevitable repeat of past weather. Due to the gridlock about climate policy (resulting from the campaign for policy to fight climate change), too little is being done. As we see in our response to Katrina and tropical storm Sandy. What other East coast cities are vulnerable to large hurricanes?
“those are local or regional concerns”
If only pointing fingers could protect us! America would be the most secure nation in the history of the world. Unfortunately assigning responsibility is not a useful rebuttal to description of a problem.
We are trusting to luck. it’s not the basis for a great nation’s prosperity. Note that many major European cities have taken large-scale measures to protect themselves against storms.
Spending trillions of $$$$ on wind turbines and Solar Panels is not going to protect us from ” weather ” !
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
You say in reply to Bruce
Not so, Bruce is quite right. Everybody needs an infrastructure policy but nobody needs a “climate policy”.
For example, I live in Cornwall, UK. We in Cornwall have no infrastructure for dealing with snow. But we get snow for a day or so on average about once in five years. It is not worth the costs of the costs of equipment and the personnel to operate it together with their maintenance as a method to deal with snow: it is cheaper to accept the costs of the disruption – and the extraction of travelers stranded on Bodmin Moor – that occurs when snow does fall on Cornwall.
Yorkshire gets much snow each year and does have infrastructure for dealing with it because that infrastructure is cheaper than the costs of disruption that would otherwise occur from snow.
If climates were to change then additional snow in Cornwall would warrant Cornwall adopting the infrastructure Yorkshire now has because that would be cheaper.
And less snow in Yorkshire would warrant Yorkshire adopting the infrastructure Cornwall now has because that would be cheaper.
Neither of these changes would be instantaneous. There would be years of changing climate before its effects warranted infrastructure change.
But you say that lack of ‘climate policy’ means
No. It is not “trusting to luck” to avoid unnecessary costs and to adopt the infrastructure (i.e. “large-scale measures”) warranted by local circumstances.
Here in Falmouth we don’t have the rapid isostatic rebound which warrants the Thames Barrage to protect London from storm surges. Our lack of demand for a Fal Barrage is not “trusting to luck”: it is our sensible consideration of what is cost effective for us.
A proper consideration of what would have been appropriate levees (i.e. cost effective infrastructure) would have avoided the New Orleans flood disaster when hurricane Katrina struck the US in 2005. And a ‘climate policy’ would not have helped.
Richard
Richard,
You write rebuttals to things I do not say, and ignore what I do say.
You prefer to call it an “infrastructure policy” to deal with our climate, rather than a “climate policy” expressed through infrastructure (and other means). Whatever.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
You claim I
Say what!?
I quoted what you did say and refuted it while ignoring nothing you had said in your post.
And YOU distort what I wrote in rebuttal. “Infrastructure policy” is NOT “climate policy”.
Every local government needs to consider all the locally needed infrastructure and how to provide it. I explained why there is no need for a climate policy to exist as part of or as addition to necessary “infrastructure policy”.
Richard
re: climate policy vs infrastructure
==========================
this really boils down to a matter of definition. As I understand the issue:
climate policy has very little meaning regionally, because no matter what action any region takes it cannot influence climate in any significant fashion, so any money spent in this fashion is essentially wasted.
infrastructure however can however directly affect a regions ability to deal with climate, and if climate changes infrastructure changes may well be required. With foresight, very little extra money should be required because infrastructure ages and must be continually replaced. When replaced any changes to climate should be taken into account during the replacement process.
richardscourtney….+ 10,000 twice…
ferdberple:
You say
Yes, I said that and I explained why any changes to climate ARE taken into account during the replacement process. As I said of my illustration
Richard
Note that many major European cities have taken large-scale measures to protect themselves against storms.
======================
that isn’t a climate policy. storms are weather. you build infrastructure to limit the damages from weather. however, a large part of this damage is self inflicted. for example:
farmers used to build their houses and barns on the hill side and farm the river bottom. every year the river would flood and bring new top soil to the fields. the houses and barns were safely above the flood.
then, the farmer sold the land to property developers and a city was built upon the level farm land at the river bottom because it was flat and level and easy to build on. the city needed to be protected from the river flooding so levees were built alongside the river.
this is what has been done in many, many places around the world. for example, here in Vancouver the Fraser river in places is 60 feet above the surrounding land, held back by miles and miles of dikes along its banks. and if the levees are not maintained, if the river is not dredged regularly, the river will eventually flood due to silt build up along the river bottom. nothing to do with climate, everything to do with infrastructure.
To Warmists and the liberal left, ” Climate Policy ” means more wind turbines and solar panels…NOTHING about infrastructure !
Marcus,
Can you point to some Republicans advocating large scale investment in climate infrastructure? For example, to better prepare East coast cities for storms?
I don’t mean whining that X should do it, not Y. I mean somehow getting the job done.
Perhaps our core competency as a nation has become whining about the inadequacies of the “other side”.
Fabius, Each East coast city should be preparing for what ever ” WEATHER ” they usually get !! No need for a ” National Climate infrastructure “, whatever the hell that is !!
I’m encouraged.
Despite apocalyptic scare papers and lecturing and hectoring by the White House and much of the mainstream media, this paper proves that the vast majority of Americans don’t know or don’t care what all the fuss is about. So just think of the enormous hill of persuasion the ‘climate change’ advocates now have to climb. It must be discouraging for them.
But, unlike a corporate environment where the CEO can fire all those who disagree, ‘climate change’ advocates must deal with a highly dispersed political environment where the employees get to vote. So time is on the side of the skeptics, which is fortunate since, as James Thurber once wrote, “He who hesitates is sometimes saved”.
promoting free-market principles and rolling back government intervention in all aspects of the economy
========================
wasn’t that one of the founding principles of the United States? didn’t a bunch of tea get dumped into Boston harbor because people in “the colonies” were fed up with King George in England telling them how to live?
doesn’t the United States have a similar situation today? Where the President has now become the new King, passing rules and regulations by Executive Decree, without regard for the majority will of the People as elected to Congress?
How is the current situation any different than the “Taxation Without Representation” that led to the American Revolution? The Executive Branch of the Government has become the new King, ignoring the wishes of The People’s Congress.
hasn’t the King of the United States set himself above the will of The People? He appears to believe he knows better than everyone else, so ignores The People.
These Dark Days will be remembered in the future as ” The Age of Liberal Delusions of Grandeur ” !!
Poor George, how has he gone down in history as being such an evil ogre.
Even in those days the sovereign was very much a figurehead but all laws and decrees were issued in his name. Parliament created the tea tax to help pay for the troops who were protecting the colonists, sort of user pays. Parliament was elected by a very small number of electors who obtained their right to vote through property and income qualifications. Very few Britons reached these standards and possibly even fewer colonists. The colonists were being treated exactly the same as most Britons!
p.s. The tea tax in Britain was about 10 times that that was applied in the colonies because only wealthy people could afford tea. Most people drank ale of one type or another, just like in the colonies.
One of the problems is the field of “climate science” is not really a science. What it is most like is “christian science”. Built within the field is a basic assumption. In the case of christian science the assumption is the existence of God. Within climate science is the assumption of human drivers. In essence, both are religious in their approach to science.
I no longer refer to “climate science” because of this. I prefer to call it “AGW science” because the “A” is built into all the studies. Once one understands this reality is it any wonder that 97% of climate scientists believe man is the driver of climate?
I prefer “Organized Clime Syndicate” myself.
Just sayin’.
Awesome….