Climate Change Consensus Customs

In this video the interviewer brings the consensus argument to bear upon environmentalist David Bellamy who does not accept the conventional wisdom concerning CO2 induced human-made climate change.

My own considered response to this diversion is to invoke a quote that has been attributed, I believe, to St. Thomas Aquinas.

'Ask not who made the claim ask whether the claim is true." If we were to bring Aquinas into the modern era to witness the climate change debate of the 21st century he might want to add another admonition to his initial statement. "Ask not how many made the claim ask whether the claim is true." A third corollary to counter the misleading nature of the consensus argument is to remind people to "Ask not who funded the claim ask whether the claim is true." The who, how many and sponsor issues are red herrings meant to distract attention away from the veracity of the claim.

And how do we determine the veracity of the claim?

We let reality be the final arbiter.

In the past people believed that the world was flat. Reality rendered a correction. Scientists were not polled for their opinion. The false belief lingered for a long time.
In the past people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Those that did not like to hear the truth attempted to shut up those who spoke it. We know better today.
Phlogiston was believed to be the causal factor in fire. Lavoisier corrected that misconception. You may remember that one from high school science.
Continental drift was not accepted initially but Wegener et al. were shown to be correct and geology has been able to explain many of the Earth's features based on an understanding of plate tectonics.

Human advancement grows from the correct view of reality.

The conventional wisdom, the settled science, the consensus has been wrong in the past and no doubt there will be other occurrences as time goes by. An interesting question to ask: how do we recognize that we are in the middle of another debate where the consensus is wrong? How can we recognize it and prevent ourselves from defending positions that are untenable?

A better understanding of human psychology around contentious issues would be of assistance but even that science can be misapplied if the psychologists accept one side as true and regard the other as demented. Then we could have a double quagmire to examine.  Psychologists risk great embarrassment by choosing sides. If they turn out to be wrong on the science for which they are not experts their expertise in their own profession will be forever tainted. 

Karl Popper said: "The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement"

To arrive at the truth, disagreements must be allowed to flourish in the learned journals of the day so that all interested parties can follow all views that are presented on the subject. Only through the free flow of discourse can we test the theory against reality. The internet is an excellent modern vehicle for the exploration of contentious scientific issues.    

Skeptical radar should immediately be engaged if a cabal representing one point of view should declare the science settled. Pet theories cannot be allowed to be declared the winner as long as alternative theories have not been ruled out or contradictory data exist. The channels of communication must be kept open so that all views are entertained. Disagreement is the antithesis of accepted theory. The theory of those who declare the science settled should immediately be suspect as deficient and scrutinized with double the trouble.

If  the champions of a particular theory should resort to ad hominem attacks against their opponents then skeptical radar should be beeping with suspicion of a weakness in their theory. Pet theories can generate vicious invective when the champions of the theory feel threatened. It can be quite disconcerting to have to publicly admit error. No one likes to feel foolish before their peers. The prudent course is to admit error as soon as it is discovered. Isn't an ad hominem an admission of weakness?

If the 'science is settled' crowd try to silence their opponents by influencing scientific journals to refuse publication of alternative theories then the science is obviously not settled and mischief can be suspected. People with a theory should welcome alternative explanations for their findings. Science should be a cooperative endeavor as humans search for the truth about reality.

If the 'science is settled' crowd refuse to debate the other side skeptical radar should be beeping incessantly until they answer the bell. Hiding from debate is an attempt to hide your shortcomings from the converted and to avoid public embarrassment from a theory that you know you cannot defend. Why would you not welcome such an exchange of views especially if it will give you an attempt to show the shortcomings of the other person's ideas? Because you are not so sure of your own?

If the 'science is settled' side attempts to use guilt by association to try to convince public opinion that not to believe in the consensus theory is somehow akin to believing in discredited theories like a 'flat earth'. This is another particularly vicious diversionary tactic used to draw attention away from difficulties of the 'preferred' theory.

Finally, if the 'science is settled' adherents accuse the opposition of committing crimes against humanity by not accepting their theory skeptical radar should be beeping loudly proclaiming the presence of desperation by the consensus because they have recognized the vulnerability of their position and admission of failure is not an option. It is win at any cost even branding their opponents as criminals. Perhaps this tactic is being used to divert attention away from their own questionable practices.

All of these tactics have been used by those who profess belief in a man made GHG driven CAGW. And it is these tactics that make me skeptical of the theory of  human CO2 induced climate change before any examination of the evidence is undertaken. These tactics smell of the stench of politics and not science.

When scientists who support the theory of CAGW become political activists they are less likely to acknowledge evidence contrary to their beliefs. Confirmation bias becomes their tunnel vision. It is rare that scientists will admit an error especially if  a large part of their career was spent arguing for what has now, for them, become a cause. As a political activist their dedication to science is now in question.

And yet it is trivial to expose the delusion of CAGW premises. Reality has spoken and the message has not been kind to those who think we are in the midst of a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The CAGW theory says and the models predict that temperatures will rise catastrophically as CO2 rises and therefore humans need to leave fossil fuel based energy sources for renewable energy sources. Reality is not cooperating with this theory as temperatures have not continued to rise as CO2 emissions have. This contradicts the theory which now must be modified or abandoned.

The CAGW theory says that severe weather will increase as emissions of CO2 continue to increase. Al Gore has been trying to blame every instance of bad weather over the recent past on human addiction to fossil fuel use and the human CO2 additions to the atmosphere which have continued to increase. Science says it isn't so. The trend in severe weather over the last 30 years is clearly on the decrease. Can we conclude the additional CO2 in the atmosphere leads to fewer instances of bad weather? The US has not been hit by a MAJOR hurricane in the last 7 years - the longest period of absence on record. This does not sound like an increase does it?

CO2 has other beneficial effects. Plants love the stuff and show their gratitude by slipping us a continuous supply of oxygen of which we have become rather fond. It is an amiable symbiotic relationship which should not be interrupted but cultivated.

Alarmists have become so ensconced in their delusion that it is becoming difficult for them to see reality. Reality must be wrong because they just know that humans are at fault. There are too many of us and we consume too much and therefore we must be destroying our environment. With Pogo science directing their search for confirmation of their theories there is a danger that the need to find evidence to support their theory can lead to misconduct. This can show up via cherry picking data and trying to mislead people about what is happening to the climate. Altering data to make your case is another option open to the dedicated Pogo scientist. Meanwhile back in reality.....

Climatologist Dr. John Christy: 'Oil & other carbon-based energies are simply the affordable means by which we satisfy our true addictions – long life, good health, plentiful food...''...internet services, freedom of mobility, comfortable homes with heating, cooling, lighting and even colossal entertainment systems, and so on. Carbon energy has made these possible'

It is like we were dropped onto a planet with an inhospitable environment without a user manual. Who can be against humans making their stay on Earth as comfortable as possible? It is natural. We have a brain so why not use it to enhance our standard of living. Will James Cameron or Al Gore prefer the primitive amenities available to the contestants of the program Survivor?

Despite the scare stories about how humans are soiling our nest Nature goes about her business as if we are but an unnoticed gnat in Her world. The case of climate change consensus that humans have concocted means nothing in the world of reality. It is of no consequence to Mother Nature if you misunderstand her.