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.
“It has been clear for some time that the conclusions of the IPCC Assessment Reports are too tame for the activist/alarmists”
This is despite the fact that the IPCC is over-estimating the effect of CO2 emissions by at least a factor of 3 such that the actual ECS is about 1/3 of the presumed nominal value and significantly below the claimed lower bound. The +/- 50% uncertainty bounding the presumed nominal value with isn’t even enough to span the actual effect!
I really thought that all scientists would want to ensure they were not tainted with ‘univocality’ – that their work was original.
…and I await another 30 minute + delay before my comment is allowed. WUWT is the loser here.
It’s not just you being delayed. The posts seem to be batched every 20-30 minutes. If it hits the moderation queue, I think you get notified immediately.
BTW, what’s univocal is the shrill proclamations of impending doom which they are deluded into believing is based on science, but in fact is based on a house of cards built from presumptions, misapplied analysis, denial of basic physics and an overwhelming desire for the effect of CO2 to be large so as to confirm their bias arising from a political position.
What will cause this house of cards to collapse is the realization that first principles requires that the effect on the net surface emissions from the next solar W/m^2 will be indistinguishable from the effect on those emissions from the average W/m^2 already arriving from the Sun.
There is nothing Westerners like so much as a story line which holds that they are leaders of thought, philosophy and action.
This meme has deep historical roots going back to Scotland in 1690 when the first inklings of the Enlightenment stirred. (FWIW, most people are not aware that Scotland had the most educated population in Europe in the 1700’s.)
Generally, Enlightenment-materialism brought advances in science that were not paralleled by advancements in spiritual development. The result is a philosophy in which religion is seen as a problem to be resolved rather than a source of spiritual guidance for material choices. Materialist philosophers want to control the high ground of ethics and morals, essentially by fiat and majoritarian assertion.
The mooted climate catastrophe is a mortal version of a destiny of brimstone and eternal loss. It is not even very well hidden. “Do what I say or you’ll roast.” Not very creative.
Note well that the argument is not about the data, but about its interpretation. “I will interpret the meaning of the data because I have standing to do so and you don’t.”
Data tampering is in service of one particular interpretation, not a search for enlightenment. It’s immoral. How does that help supply the missing ingredient?
It is interesting to watch old lessons being re-learned.
It is everyone. It seems posts only show up just after the top of every hour.
Virtually zero comments post right away, unless they happen to be made around the top of the hour.
And as noted, if a comment goes to moderation, you get informed of that and it appears immediately with a note informing you of moderation…until screen is refreshed and then it disappears until the top of the hour.
And it is not just this site…it seem to be all wordpress blogs about climate, although I do not know the extent of it.
Michael Crichton on consensus science.
The above points on consensus science from Dr Crichton need to driven home in every undergrad and high school science class as a Lesson 1 on day 1. The video of his delivery of his Caltech address is available someplace on YouTube if the Alarmists haven’t forced it to be taken down.
“State of Fear” should be required reading at the HS level. As should “1984” and “Animal Farm” by Orwell.
‘Scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change.’
What units is ‘climate change’ measured in? Has it been going up or down?
I think the unit is Littles, named after the famous physicist Chicken Little.
Great quote from Dr. Michael Crichton:
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled…Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus…Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
From his speech: Aliens Cause Global Warming (2003): http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/aliens-cause-global-warming/
It is worth noting, in this complex World of ours that, according to NASA, the gases in Earth’s atmosphere include: Nitrogen – 78%, Oxygen – 21%, Argon – 0.93%, Carbon dioxide – 0.038%. Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapour. Atmospheric methane is calculated at being at 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million by volume) of the total atmosphere, related to anthropogenic activities.
The percentage of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only a sliver at 3% of the total CO2 in the total atmosphere. On the other hand 0.00017% of anthropogenic activity gases is CH4 puts it into perspective. A much greater and instant threat is the ‘huge’ rise in earthquakes, which have risen by 256% (1750-2015), and produce massive amounts of CH4. Experts are predicting many more earthquakes in the future which will release further massive amounts of methane (making anthropogenic releases ‘pale into insignificance’ in comparison – It’s like blaming a single smoker for all the pollution problems in the world.
Activists have convinced many that the eating of Beef is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and that we cut down, or better still, stop eating it all together. YET the production of RICE grown in paddy fields (global consumption of rice has seen an increase over the last several years. In the 2018/2019 crop year, about 490.27 million metric tons of rice was consumed worldwide, up from 437.18 million metric tons in the 2008/2009 crop year) generates so much MORE methane (CH4) than beef production but NOT A PEEP said regarding rice. Sciencedirect.com estimates rice production, worldwide, is responsible for 10 and 70% of the total anthropogenic methane emissions. (Why such a wide range is unknown)
“Experts known to be controversial” is gobbledygook. Experts know their stuff and as a result are generally right on their subject matter. Controversial is a relative and subjective term and cannot be considered as fact. Known is fact. Oreskes and co are playing with language which is what they have done all along. What they really meant to say is experts who point out flaws in supposedly logical arguments are a darn nuisance.
If Oreskes is a co-author, I’m not wasting my time reading the book.
Oppenheimer, Oreskes — the immediate reaction: what are they up to?
Dr John Christy has recently put all of their CAGW claims to the test and so far hardly a peep from the MSM or sceptical sites etc.
Here’s his talk at the UK’s GWPF in June. So why the lack of interest I wonder?
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
I thought perhaps Dr. Curry had her rose-colored glasses on again if she thought anything good might come of this. I thought to comment. Then I read this, by Gary Pearce. So good it is worth quoting.
Gary Pearce said:
On another note, this caught my eye.
The authors Oreskes, Oppenheimer and Jamison said:
Let’s take this apart a bit.
1) the push for agreement and caution may undermine other important goals, including inclusivity
The push for agreement undermines inclusivity???????????
2) the push for agreement and caution may undermine other important goals, including … accuracy
As near as I can tell, this statement is only TRUE when I am right and you are wrong, therefor we should not seek agreement. Otherwise this statement is FALSE. (TRUE | FALSE, logical Boolean values here)
3) the push for agreement and caution may undermine other important goals, including … comprehension
This statement must be TRUE, because it is utterly incomprehensible to me.
There is no departure from their own certainty about what is “true”.
There are a lot of ways to interpret the whole message they present, but it would be a mistake to think it is meant as a softening of opprobrium towards skeptic, or any uncertainty about CAGW.
One thing they seem to be saying, among others, is that talking about consensus has been unmasked for what it is: Unscientific garbage that convinces no one of anything, and can be used by critics of the climate mafia to point out how utterly unscientific they are.
What the warmistas do not seem to be capable of comprehending is that people know they are full of crap, and have learned to ignore their hair on fire lunacy. Or that jumping up and down and screaming louder does not and never will make anyone sound more believable, or the things they scream about sound more factual.
People ignore lunatics because they say nothing useful.
And no one forgets it when you lie to them.
For climate science to get back on track they would need to have one of those memory erasing devices from the Men in Black movie.
The entire science needs to go back to the drawing board and realize that the Earth in reality is not a smooth, mostly solid surface with no heat capacity; and that the atmosphere is not a solid glass panel which is above the surface in the first place due to radiative emissions from the surface.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
I was talking with an alarmist, and asked him what he considered the strongest argument for his side. Of course, it was the 97% thing. I pointed out that technically this was a well-known logical fallacy and asked him for his SECOND strongest argument…
Consensus about science (Greek for knowledge) is not a bad thing, but the problem is that science only progresses through those who break with the consensus or the sceptics (Greek from inquiry).
Putting it mathematically
… Science = sum of Scepticism.
Or
… Scepticism = rate of progress of Science.
So, during a period of relative stagnation, we expect a large amount of “science”, but during a period of relatively fast change in ideas we expect a large amount of scepticism. Neither is wrong, nor can one live without the other. Science is the stable body of knowledge, scepticism is the unstable change or progress in knowledge. Without a body of science to progress, scepticism would be meaningless, but without all those sceptics in the past, there would be no current body of knowledge.
“Since the early 2000s there has been little disagreement among scientific experts over the fundamental evidence supporting the existence, origin, and societal significance of anthropogenic climate change (CC). Yet, while an anthropogenic cause is supported by an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists (CCS), climate change contrarians (CCC) have successfully organized a strong voice within politics and science communication in the United States.” – Nature 2019
https://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-warming-science-commentariat-15.html
“Lets open up the scientific debate on climate change and celebrate disagreement and use it to push the knowledge frontier of climate science. ”
Naive in the extreme. Science was never the issue. Modern environmentalism emanated from the Club of Rome gang of Apex Predators led by the likes of Rockefeller, Strong, Agnelli etc.
Faux science was always employed a the wedge to a New Dark Ages program. The West was most susceptible but also the most intensively propagandized. Meanwhile the ROW, led by China, laugh as the West embraces economic suicide, led by a dim witted autistic adolescent.
“…minimalist conclusions that are weak or incomplete.”
Whenever I reviewed a paper, I would always be on the lookout for adjectives. They are rarely needed in scientific papers and are at best a poor substitute for data. For instance, don’t tell me the temperature is “high” give me the actual temperature. At worst, adjectives that are poorly defined in the context of the paper just hide fuzzy thinking (as above).
Also, I always expected every assertion to be demonstrated by reference or an example. I would have just scribbled “Show, don’t tell!” at the end of the quoted sentence if I were the reviewer/editor.
In 1920’s and beyond a relatively large and influential group of Russian ex-pats dominated the dialogue
In the West about ousting the Bolshevik’s and restoring civilization. Aside the fact that many were Bolshevik double agents or soft social revolutionaries their efforts came to nothing.
It’s with that thought in mind consider where the “climate change” movement is and the tepid inside the obscure margins this dated skeptical focus is placed. The climate movement is planning to replace capitalism, suspend the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments in the US, has managed to purge X and Y chromosomes from gender identification and has expanded their ambitions to that of Mao’s cultural revolution. This is the fashion of skeptic dissent???
Anyone who caught Mark Steyn on Tucker Carlson last night should get the point. Aside from fostering a dozen other political sciences ready made for totalitarian inclinations the Climate Change radicalization couldn’t care less about a 97% rebuttal. Dr. Curry while somewhat has moved toward a more reasonable outlook (after reaching a safe retirement status it should be noted) is still about 15-20 years behind in her orthodox dissent (which is still measured dissent at that). This can’t be the face of mainstream climate dissent if freedom on Earth is to have a fighting chance. Let’s stop day dreaming in the weeds. Dr. Curry has yet to acknowledge the green and climate movements as largely leftist political operations, let alone as they were conceived. Without that basic lack of candor where could she lead the broader climate debate?
charles the moderator,
“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.”
Reminds on “thesis, antithesis >> synthesis.
charles the moderator, your aim is synthesis with Oppenheimer, Oreskes et al.
Keep that in mind!
Re-evaluating the manufacture of the climate consensus
charles the moderator /
___________________________________________________
Re-evaluating,
charles the moderator / on bended knees.
___________________________________________________
What’s that game.