From Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on August 21, 2019 by curryja |
by Judith Curry
A new book by Oppenheimer, Oreskes et al. entitled ‘Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy‘ makes a case against consensus seeking in climate science assessments.
I have long railed against the consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC (see my previous blog posts on this topic). And particularly, my paper:
Oppenheimer has long voiced concerns about consensus (e.g. his 2007 paper). However, Oreskes has been consensus enforcer in chief, originating the 97% thingy.
I haven’t read their new book, but authors Oreskes, Oppenheimer and Jamison have written an essay on their book in Scientific American, entitled Scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change.
You can see where this is going from the title of this article; most of this is an attempt to justify alarmism. But they make some interesting points. Excerpts:
<begin quote>
“In our new book, Discerning Experts, we explored the workings of scientific assessments for policy, with particular attention to their internal dynamics, as we attempted to illuminate how the scientists working in assessments make the judgments they do. Among other things, we wanted to know how scientists respond to the pressures—sometimes subtle, sometimes overt—that arise when they know that their conclusions will be disseminated beyond the research community—in short, when they know that the world is watching. The view that scientific evidence should guide public policy presumes that the evidence is of high quality, and that scientists’ interpretations of it are broadly correct. But, until now, those assumptions have rarely been closely examined.”
“Among the factors that appear to contribute to underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we label univocality: the felt need to speak in a single voice. Many scientists worry that if disagreement is publicly aired, government officials will conflate differences of opinion with ignorance and use this as justification for inaction. Others worry that even if policy makers want to act, they will find it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. Therefore, they will actively seek to find their common ground and focus on areas of agreement; in some cases, they will only put forward conclusions on which they can all agree.”
“The push toward agreement may also be driven by a mental model that sees facts as matters about which all reasonable people should be able to agree versus differences of opinion or judgment that are potentially irresolvable. If the conclusions of an assessment report are not univocal, then (it may be thought that) they will be viewed as opinions rather than facts and dismissed not only by hostile critics but even by friendly forces. The drive toward consensus may therefore be an attempt to present the findings of the assessment as matters of fact rather than judgment.”
“The combination of these three factors—the push for univocality, the belief that conservatism is socially and politically protective, and the reluctance to make estimates at all when the available data are contradictory—can lead to “least common denominator” results—minimalist conclusions that are weak or incomplete.”
“Moreover, if consensus is viewed as a requirement, scientists may avoid discussing tricky issues that engender controversy (but might still be important), or exclude certain experts whose opinions are known to be “controversial” (but may nevertheless have pertinent expertise). They may also consciously or unconsciously pull back from reporting on extreme outcomes. (Elsewhere we have labeled this tendency “erring on the side of least drama.”) In short, the push for agreement and caution may undermine other important goals, including inclusivity, accuracy and comprehension.”
“In our book, we make some concrete recommendations. While scientists in assessments generally aim for consensus, we suggest that they should not view consensus as a goal of the assessment. Depending on the state of scientific knowledge, consensus may or may not emerge from an assessment, but it should not be viewed as something that needs to be achieved and certainly not as something to be enforced. Where there are substantive differences of opinion, they should be acknowledged and the reasons for them explained (to the extent that they can be explained). Scientific communities should also be open to experimenting with alternative models for making and expressing group judgments, and to learning more about how policy makers actually interpret the findings that result.”
<end quote>
JC reflections
In seeking to defend “it’s worse than we thought” about climate change, Oppenheimer, Oreskes et al. have opened up a welcome can of worms. Consensus seeking and consensus enforcement have trivialized and politicized climate science for decades.
It has been clear for some time that the conclusions of the IPCC Assessment Reports are too tame for the activist/alarmists. In fact, quoting the IPCC is a favored strategy of the so-called ‘contrarians’ (including myself). It remains to be seen if Oreskes can drop the 97% consensus rhetoric (I doubt it).
In twitter discussion on this article, Gavin hits the nail on the head:
Whenever Michael Mann interacts with me, he comes loaded with this statement “uncertainty is not your friend,” “uncertainty is a two-edged sword.” In the same vein, there are two tails to these distributions. The problem is not only extreme events on the high end, but all the neglected natural processes that have been marginalized (e.g. in attribution analyses) or neglected (e.g. in future projections); these natural processes can contribute to tails on both ends of the distribution.
My solution to the problem identified by Gavin is addressed in my new paper, which will be posted tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Lets stop manufacturing consensus about climate change. Lets open up the scientific debate on climate change and celebrate disagreement and use it to push the knowledge frontier of climate science. The whole consensus thing has done little to reduce global CO2 emissions, which was the point of the whole exercise. It’s time for new approaches to both science and policy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oreskes admitted some time ago her original BS conclusions regarding consensus were just that:
“In fact, two years after the publication of the original article, Prof. Oreskes revealed that “very few” of the 928 papers had Agreed.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/oreskes-harvard-and-the-destruction-of-scientific-revolutions/
What now, attempts at saving face as the truth regarding AGW consensus continues to march out of the darkness?
Oreskes saving face? Please, no.
Yes, “horse and barn door” come to mind.
I’m not sure that’s what Scissor meant exactly DJ, but while I’m being a bit juvenile, I think your quote could best be applied to another climate nut case.
Speaking of climate nut cases, late news but, in case anyone didn’t hear i,t Jay Inslee dropped out of the presidential race or more likely, the race for the participation trophy. Ironic that the most prominent remaining climate warrior, Steyer, will actually be funded by fossil fuel money. You couldn’t make it up.
Also in the news today, Democrats cancelled the entire climate debate they had scheduled.
Oh, uglier than either of those, methinks!
If Oreskes is a co-author, I’m not wasting my time reading the book.
I’m not wasting my time reading the book.
It could be mildly interesting to see her contradict herself just a few short years after her first bearing of false witness on the same subject, however, I understand your point Mr. Macrae.
Furthermore, at $77.02 (hardback) and $29.33 (paperback), I don’t fancy being a direct cause of my lucre becoming filthy by lining her pockets with it.
i picked up one of her books at the opshop for 1$;-)
cant bring myself to read it
BP doesnt need the damage
might have to do a “pommy pensioner” and burn it on these cold nights to keep warm;-))
“the reluctance to make estimates at all when the available data are contradictory”
Reluctance to make a decision based on a contradiction? Reluctance?!? And, these people are considered “scientists”?
Do “scientists” have any training in logic? Any conclusion can be derived if you have a contradiction. There should be no policy decisions based on a contradiction.
… to: Pee & Not Pee
Strangely enough, the msm don’t have a problem with pushing the tails to make it look like ‘it’s worse than we thought’.
BDTP, not only do the msm not “have a problem with pushing the tails to make it look like ‘it’s worse than we thought’”, they deliberately seek to sensationalise every utterance of climate scientists, so long as they are players in “the cause”.
The race for “clicks” is all-pervasive.
As per Judith’s observations on the issue, who has ever seen a story in the msm headlined –
AFTER EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE INFLUENCE OF CLOUDS ON CLIMATE BEHAVIOUR
Said it before, don’t know what it’s called, but there was a great film about a newspaper journo & his assistant, told by the Editor in Chief to go out & get some news, & if they couldn’t find any, to go out & make some!!! Nothing changes, heh?
…thanks to the internet….all the news is just click bait
I don’t think the news ware any more honest, in a time where people could not access information themselves. It was just much harder to prove them false.
Candidates for the next U.S. election are on board with MSM as well:https://saraacarter.com/bernies-16-trillion-green-plan-promises-complete-decarbonization-by-2050/
Good posting as a lead-in to your paper tomorrow, Dr. Judith. “Discerning Experts” suggests what, that everyone else is a pack of Crap Weasels? Their paper is a lame attempt to claim they are woke on the issue of not depending on consensus when in reality they depend on it. Looking forward to tomorrow!
“Lets stop manufacturing consensus about climate change. Lets open up the scientific debate on climate change and celebrate disagreement and use it to push the knowledge frontier of climate science.”
In other words, let’s get back to doing science.
‘The whole consensus thing has done little to reduce global CO2 emissions, which was the point of the whole exercise.”
That and to destroy any hint of dissention.
“It’s time for new approaches to both science and policy.”
Wrong. It’s time to resurrect the old approaches to both science and policy.
‘The whole consensus thing has done little to reduce global CO2 emissions, which was the point of the whole exercise.”
Right there is science gone bad. Not one scientist has ever demonstrated that CO2 controls temperature and geologic history says that there is either no connection or, CO2 increases lag warming and do not precede it. Why were a ton of scientists trying to reduce CO2 without ever proving it effects temperature in the first place?
Imagine how much more we might know about our climate if billions had not been wasted trying to pin warming from the LIA, no less, on the innocent CO2 molecule and such things as cow farts?
From the article: “Lets stop manufacturing consensus about climate change. Lets open up the scientific debate on climate change and celebrate disagreement and use it to push the knowledge frontier of climate science.”
I agree with your sentiment, but I doubt many on the alarmist side will agree. They have a lot at stake in maintaining that CAGW is real, and the “97% Consensus” is an integral part of that promotion.
Every alarmist and their brother falls back on the “97% Consensus” to sell CAGW. One doesn’t have to have any knowledge to claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with the CAGW scare, and that’s what the unknowledgeable use. You hear it all the time, because it is effective at shutting down the conversation.
Btw, the real consensus connected with the “97%” study was about 0.3 percent consensus in reality. The “97% consensus” and CAGW are all a Big Lie.
97% of Climate Scientists believe in Climate Change. The remaining 103% are sceptical
The problem is that there can never be a “scientific” debate on climate change, because the manner in which our climate changes cannot be determined scientifically – certainly not in a period of time as pitifully small as a human lifespan. All scientists can do is collect data on whatever statistics are currently in vogue as to what constitutes climate, and speculate on the causes of such change. But no actual experimentation will ever take place to scientifically determine causation, no statistical approximation can be measured from a sample population of a single Earth’s climate, and so forth. The scientific method has no tool available to objectively quantify what climate scientists (read: propagandists) want to measure.
Any “debate” on these things is entirely subjective, hence not scientific.
It’s a cookbook!
They are placing their shingle out for the next insane, advocacy-driven policy march over anyone or fact in their way. This is the cookbook for the ones in the tank tracks of the next blitzkrieg.
“It’s a cookbook!”
As Adolf Hitler said in that marvelous piece ofbedtime reading, Mein Kampf, the mas of the people are more likely to believe a really big lie than a small one!
Exactly, and CONSENSUS is so easy for the Proles to understand.
Reduce CO2 emissions???
What a bizarro idea. That sort of claim must have a political basis.
CO2 is good for life on Earth.
More CO2 emissions would be a clear benefit to life on Earth.
And there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the Climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
1.6% not 97%
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html
John Cook is one of the leading authors of the studies showing the 97% consensus which includes the claim that 97% of climate scientists believe mankind (CO2) is the primary cause of the recent warming.
Two major errors in the study
A) Cook lumps the 3 groups of responses into one group as if the all three groups believes mankind is the primary cause of the warming 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910
B) the second major error is none of the studies where the author opined on the cause of the warming studied the cause of the warming. In other words, none of the studies conducted a study of the cause of the warming and therefore had not basis in the study to opine on the cause.
Very sloppy and unscientific study – gotta wonder if these studies are indicative of the quality of other climate studies
Amen Brother
It’s been my beef all along. A set of data having nothing to do with causes of climate change just throws in a clickbait line of “ due to man made climate change”, and that is taken as that the study itself is evidence supporting the alarmist position.
But alas, I’ve come to the conclusion the the human intellect has devolved to a point that such chicanery is embraced and celebrated. The King truly does not have any clothes.
Dr.,
I remember Dr. Krauthammer’s quote, “…I try to be cynical, but it’s hard to keep up…”
John Cook’s PhD is in Philosophy. He works in a center for climate change COMMUNICATION.
In other words, extraordinary theories need extraordinary evidence.
Imagine applying any other choice to the threat of alien invasion by the flying saucermen.
The severity of the outcome is terrible. The hypothesis is long established. Many signs of flying saucers have been reported.
But seriously, spending the defence budget on this is crazy.
Without extraordinary evidence, climate change is just the same.
Maybe they are afraid that the consensus of scientists is moving against climate alarmism. They are just trying to get ahead of that wave and be able to dismiss it when someone throws in their face that the consensus of scientists believe that climate change is not a problem.
BINGO!!, M.McG. As the truth emerges into the light of what has been underway all along that will prove embarrassing to continuing participants, some of the rats sense that the ship is sinking and a bit of smoke may screen being identified as a charter player in the deceit. Their dreaded foresight of the collapse of their fake narrative prompts cutting their losses by virtue-signaling a reasonable countenance. They’re real charmers, they are.
But Dr. Judith, that would require doing actual, reproducible SCIENCE instead of propagandizing, terrorizing children, troughing, and whinging. What fun would THAT be?
It is still amazing to think that while virtually the entire world of adult humans recognizes and rails against the human fallacy of submitting to peer pressure as a justification for doing all manner of stupid and destructive things, the climate alarmists still insist on peer pressure as the sine qua non of decision logic.
Or, as the Borg stated so often in the world of science fiction television: “You WILL be assimilated!” And all the viewers of those shows knew exactly what is sacrificed in the name of assimilation! Your very humanity!
Just ask all those Germans who gave into to nazi peer pressure.
Guiding one’s scientific research, analysis, hypothesizing, and advocating on the basis of peer pressure – what climate alarmists now label “consensus” – is of course the diametric and polar opposite of scientific endeavor.
So how about the following consensus:
“It is very likely that the majority of the modern warming is due to natural causes and to some extent has been exaggerated due to factors such as UHI, poor thermometer placement, and rural station dropout, but some authors whose paychecks depend on it, think that it’s mostly man’s fault”.
I Wonder if that would suit Gavin. No?
“uncertainty is not your friend,”
====???
It isn’t your enemy, either.
It can be your teacher, if you listen to its quiet whisper.
Michael Mann is not your friend, either.
Michael Mann speaks with bent stick.
FWIW, here’s an article written by the guy who ripped into Judith Curry via a Scientific American article in 2010:
https://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/why-i-wrote-about-judith-curry
J Curry is encouraged that the authors think consensus is not a good goal. However their case doesnt include serious departures from consensus such that they would consider offerings from sceptics. Their idea, though not seen as such, is that consensus is made up of rabid, end-of-world alarmists much diluted by more cautious or more measured warming proponents and they want the latter to get more backbone and not try to be so ‘reasonable’.
I’m impressed that a Harvard scholar (Oreskes) would display such a grievous lack of logic in her philosophical reckonings. There is a gaping hole in this thesis. Knowing 1) that grants in this politically charged field are mainly proffered for getting alarmist conclusions, and 2) promotions, star status, awards etc. and even fears of losing your job (a regular occurrence) are the inducements faced by climate scientists, the first guess on the make-up of the climate consensus should be that the moderate end of the continuum includes scientists with considerable doubt and scruples who are staying just within acceptable bounds to be safely part of a consensus. Among them will be those former believers who recognize the entire meme has been falsified by predictions (now ‘projections’) that proved to be 300% overboard when caught up with by observations, and a two decade ‘Pause’ during which CO2 emissions were galloping. The makeup of the consensus is derivable from the late Stephen Schneider’s admonition that climate scientists wanting to be effective need to hype and lie.
There is no changing of minds in this piece by Oreskes and her conclusion that the climate crisis is worse than we thought, should be, on the evidence, that there is no real crisis.
When was the last time that scientists needed consensus to understand the nature? But politicians, yes.
And there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the Climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
Lets stop manufacturing consensus about climate change. Lets open up the scientific debate on climate change and celebrate disagreement and use it to push the knowledge frontier of climate science.
Well, that’s not going to happen. Certainly not in the media. Kip Hansen posted this link back in June:
Transforming the media’s coverage of the climate crisis
“Climate Change” is about to be replaced by “The Climate Crisis” The media is orchestrating this Orwellian change in broad daylight.
Here’s a cartoon for your amusement Link
Orwell’s pigs did it in the dark of night.
More sinister though is the increase in conflation of the climate crisis and environmentalism, often in consecutive sentences but more frequently with a “we must combat ….” sentence in between. So dear readers, if you don’t agree to combat the climate, you hate the environment.
There is no need for a course beyond Propaganda 101 for these parasites.
She wants the mainstream consensus to tolerate a tail. Singular. Hers.
Judith,
Bless you. You are patient and unassuming.
But one day, perhaps you will realize that Gavin, Mann and others are actually your enemies in a large battle for the “soul” of science.
Their tack is to demean others, refuse debate and claim victory based on authority.
Science, however, does not kowtow to “authority” or models, even if pretty.
These fellows’ models are definitely NOT pretty, nor do they replicate nature very well. Certainly not enough to make claims like “… at least half of late 20th Century Warming was due to human GHG emissions.”
Time to challenge the ridiculous claims.
More power to you. But do be brave enough to get off the Lukewarmer Fence. Do it for Science.
There is no consensus regarding the validity of the AGW conjecture. All claims of consensus are just speculation. Scientists never registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had the consensus would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.
The AGW conjecture seems plausible at first but upon closer inspection one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that have LWIR absorption bands and that supposedly trap heat. The reality is that good absorbers are also good radiators and that the greenhouse gases also share sensible heat energy with surrounding molecules. If any heat trapping is taking place it would be by the non-greenhouse gases because they are such poor LWIR radiators to space. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse , in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the Solar System. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we are currently experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on science and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even if the entire world completely stopped the burning of fossil fuels, the effort would have no effect on global climate.
Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. So there is nothing to be gained by lowering CO2 emissions. The world would be better off if we concentrated on improving the global economy.
Let’s face it, the only source nowadays for climate policy is the MSM. Not even the bogus IPCC SPM gets a look in these days. Notice how the IPCC never claims that the MSM is misrepresenting it?
How did ‘2C is worse then 1.5C by 2030’ become ‘We have 12 years to save the planet.’?
How often is WUWT quoted on the news? Or the GWPF? Or Paul Homewood? Or Pierre Gosselin? It doesn’t matter what honest scientists like Judith Curry decide to publish if they are eternally kept outside looking in?
Indeed. As this post details, California’s highly touted reduction of 5 million metric tons between 2016 and 2017 is overshadowed just a mite:
California could reduce emissions to zero and it would amount to about 16 months increase from developing nations. Perhaps the people who actually control human CO2 emissions have a different consensus.
Quite simply the world is not going to stop making steel, aluminum, concrete, glass and a host of other energy-intensive materials unless something better comes along. Nor will we go back to transporting goods by oxcart or crossing oceans in sailing ships (Gretta Thunberg’s publicity stunt notwithstanding).
Unless radical technology breakthroughs emerge around the time Oreskes et. al. publish their next paper, total human CO2 emissions will continue to increase to 2050 and beyond, consensus or not.
Consider that LED lights first appeared in the mid 1960’s and only in the last 10 years or so have they been a practical replacement for everyday lighting needs. It’s taken over 50 years of development to get to this point but we could today reasonably undertake replacing a very large portion of the world’s installed lighting capacity with LEDs. Now consider how much larger a job it would be to replace most of the world’s CO2-emitting energy usage, but with technology we don’t currently have.
I don’t keep track of these predictions, but I think 2050 is at least two Armageddons from now — three if you count AOC’s statements. If we really get serious about new energy technology, we just might be able by 2050 to start deploying it on a large scale.
This reads to me like an overture to a rebranding, or remessaging, that has been the subject of some of the worst of the warmista “studies”.
I did not see a single indication of any shift in the general basic hypothesis that CO2 is the thermostat of the Earth, that warming is disastrous and to be much feared, or any of the rest of the unsupported and unsupportable nonsense spewed by these activists.
The Oppenheimer et al book is a call to “double down” on the crisis. The thrust is that the search for consensus causes scientists to hold back on what they think is going to happen, reduce the likely outcomes so they all “play nice”. What they want is for them to release the hounds, go for that 17C projected warming and don’t be shy about it.