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.

Flights of Fancy

“If u don't 'believe' in the science of climate change (that it isnt real or man-made) then u believe 1000s of scientists are lying. “

So says an actor by the name of Rainn Wilson who plays "Dwight Schrute" on the TV program ‘The Office’. 
Amy Brenneman tweets "So weird Romney is proud of not making global warming a priority. Like being proud of driving drunk."

Actors must immerse themselves in fanciful worlds to play the characters that entertain us. Most actors are able to switch back and forth between their roles and their real selves. Those that cannot remain immersed in self delusion. The expertise of an actor might well qualify them  to spot delusions in the real world.

However, some can’t extricate themselves from their imaginary worlds long enough to recognize the real world. They get confused. Let us help Mr Wilson and Ms Brenneman reacquaint themselves with the real world.

Change is what the climate does. Scientists regularly argue back and forth until they discover reality or how the world really works. Rainn seems to be unaware that there is another opinion of how the climate operates that does not support the Statements for Policymakers published by the IPCC. Some of the scientists who worked for the IPCC do not support those conclusions.

Rainn, you can read about that dissent here and here and here and here.

Did Mr Dan Schectman believe his colleagues were lying or just mistaken? It turned out that the conventional wisdom, the settled science, the consensus was wrong and the ‘denier’ was correct.

Hope you will allow yourself to explore the other side Rainn.

Although Ms Brenneman would not agree it is to be hoped that Romney will make global warming a priority and roll back all the subsidies to green energy generation as well as rescind the CO2 designation as a pollutant by the EPA. CO2 is plant food. CO2 is green.

CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Consensus Yet Again in May 2012

 In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo Galilei

The New York Times is promoting a billboard sponsored by Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. The billboard asks: “Who to believe on climate? Heartland ... or EVERY National Scientific Academy in the world?”

What questions were put to all the members of all the National Scientific Academies? 

What independent third party non-partisan pollster administered the questions?

When were these polls completed? In what countries?

What were the results? Where can they be found online?

What was the percentage of respondents in each country?

Did they ask who believed that the human burning of fossil fuels was the primary cause of the late 20th century global warming?

The answers to the above questions are unavailable because no such polls were ever done. 

The governors of the National Academies issued the concurrence with the man-made global warming view as a political statement.

Why?

Read here

And how are people feeling about the issue of global warming after all the scare stories and hype? Check out Obama.

And now you know the unreported part of the story.

In another consensus study conducted by Naomi Oreskes she counted 10,000 papers supporting AGW. How many did she find that did not and why did she not report that number? This oversight betrays a bias rather than  an attempt to elucidate the truth. A German meteorologist, Klaus-Eckart Puls, recently remarked: "Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it."


How many more scientists who have supported AGW are in the same boat? How many of the often presented figure of 97% are like him? In the debate over the proximate causes of modern climate change there is no doubt that someone is in denial. In this case is it the side that is leveling the accusation that is indulging in the practice? Can we say projection? They claim reason but exhibit Aristotelian fallacies in defense of their position such as ad hominems and painting with a broad brush. And yet they think it is those skeptical of the 'consensus' who are in denial. They believe in the consensus as if that is sufficient. They think they have the weight of the evidence on their side because of it. But consensus is not evidence. Observation, experiments and studies constitute evidence. And there is evidence on both sides.

Interestingly, a year 2000 peer reviewed study has surfaced, published by the American National Academy of Science, authored by none other than James Hansen, that shows NASA knew global warming is caused by non-CO2 factors. Well, gollllleee! 

There is no consensus on man-made global warming. But one thing is sure: both sides can't both be right.  

Let us not forget that reality is the final arbiter. 

The location of this version of an acronym for CAGW eludes me: Conning A Gullible World 

And so it is.

NAS Consensus

"Every national academy of science in the world, including our own, agrees that climate change is due to increased fossil fuel use." ~ Michael Mann

If true, this was not a wise thing for the august bodies to do for if it should turn out that their considerations were in error the resulting damage to their reputations will be embarrassing. It is best that they allow their members to address the issue as expert witnesses and that the organization remain neutral. That way they can avoid becoming the butt of jokes.

Mr Mann could be accused of using the false argument ad populum to persuade his listeners rather than presenting irrefutable scientific evidence that the proposition is true. But these institutions do have some credibility of standing on the issue. However, the thoughts of the credentialed gentlemen below are worth considering and serve to remind us that it is the business of truth to relentlessly ask questions and check the answers against the final arbiter, that is, reality.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell

"In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy". (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland).

"The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."  ~Galileo

Were the esteemed members of these academies polled for their views or did the board of governors take it upon themselves to issue a statement supporting the position? The latter would appear to be the case.

If the members were polled, what was the percentage response to the question: Do you agree that climate change is due to increased fossil fuel use? What was the extent of the agreement?

If the members were not polled under what authority did the board issue the statement? The Royal Society in Britain has as policy that they are “never to give their opinion as a Body upon any subject either of Nature or Art that comes before them” . Too bad they didn't stick to that policy when it came to CAGW. Several members of the American Physical Society resigned because they did not agree with the official position taken by the APS on climate change. Fifty former NASA employees including several astronauts have objected to that organization's unsupportable statements concerning man made climate change (CAGW).

There are others who have objected to the proposition about man-made global warming. Over at Popular Technology.net you can find lists of papers critical of CAGW. At Friends of Science you can find a list of books that are critical of CAGW. Also at FoS you can find a list of peer-reviewed papers which counteracts the work of Naomi Oreskes who produced an internet search of the ISI Web of Science database that concluded a majority of papers supported the consensus view that "humans were having at least some effect on global climate change". There are many more now that do not offer such support. You can check here for scientists who do not support the CAGW scenario. You will have to page down about a third of the way to find the 'consensus' topic. And here is an article that mentions some organizations that take a skeptical stance on man-made climate change. Almost missed this one.

Mann's statement immediately turns on my skeptical radar as it arouses my suspicion that the case is weak if it must be prefaced with an attempt to shut down criticism. It suggests that there is an agenda that the speaker wants to move on to without having to pass critical inspection.

It is good that we have scientists that are not afraid to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes if they observe his state of undress.

'The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman

So, in the matter of climate change due to increased fossil fuel use let us see what CO2 is doing to the real world.

A theory postulates how the world works and then scientists check if reality behaves as the theory suggests it should. If reality is found to contradict the theory then the theory must be modified or abandoned.  Even though there are more we will only look at three or four instances where CAGW predictions are compromised by reality.

 The gold standard of predictions for CAGW is that as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere temperatures will dangerously increase and cause drought, water shortages, famine and rising sea levels due to melting ice sheets at the poles. Reality check: temperatures are at their highest levels since 1850 but they have stopped increasing even as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has accelerated. This is a disconnect between theory and reality. It should not be happening if the theory is true. Temperatures in the lower 48 States in the US have been decreasing for 15 years. World temperatures have been on the decline since 2002. World's oldest temperature record shows a 10 year decrease.

As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere instances of extreme weather are supposed to increase. Let us look at hurricanes which certainly can be considered examples of extreme weather. Instances of severe hurricanes have been on the decrease.

Ocean temperatures are supposed to be increasing as global warming proceeds. Since the Argo buoys (3300 of them) have been deployed in the world's oceans in 2003 they have detected a sight cooling.

Tide guages do not detect an accelerating rise in sea level which is a mainstay prediction of IPCC climate models.

"The debate on global warming is over." - Al Gore, 2006

Think again, Al. The globe is not warming. We have been implementing unnecessary green policies at great cost for no good scientific reason. CAGW is a myth and Bertrand Russell's observation is vindicated again.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

The consensus on when it is too late

 "For half a century green activists have insisted that their historical moment - and a particular generation - are the planet's last hope."

Ho hum...Yawn... we have heard it all before. Read the article for a synopsis.

This is called the consensus on when the tipping point for humanity has been surpassed and it is too late for us.

Until the next tax payer funded conference in some far away and preferably warm location takes place and then that will be humanity's last gasp.

Time to put this little scare tactic to bed.  They haven't been right yet. Perhaps there is no reason to think they ever will be.

More fun with consensus - who is hardest hit

Who will be hardest hit by global warming? Do those who believe that global warning is man-made agree on the location on earth that will be hardest hit?

Nope.

So who do we believe? When someone figures out who has the truth on this issue please contact me so we can watch it together.

Or perhaps, as one commenter on the article suggests:

Anonymous said...

CAGW would be hardest hit if this were published in the MSM.

And not everyone is afraid of warming...

Anonymous said...

The one place better off will be Canada.90% of the country has 8 months of winter and 4 months of bad skating.. warmmm pleaseeee

Origin of the consensus

“How can you deny that man made global warming is real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?”

It is not what it seems. 

The other 'evidence' for a consensus originated with Naomi Oreskes. It was based on 900 abstracts of published papers that dealt with global warming. Here are 900 peer reviewed papers that support skeptical arguments against human induced global warming. 


Has anyone replicated her study??

A modern successful exercise in battling a consensus that turned out to be incorrect. 


Citing a consensus as a valid argument isn't one. It is argument from authority. If a logic exam contained only the question about the validity of the argument from authority and you answered that it was a valid argument then flunk would be your grade.

Having more fun with consensus - Arctic Sea Ice

The sea ice is still there in the summer but that hasn't detracted from the propensity of scientists to weigh in with their august opinions on when we will see an ice free Arctic. Could be any year now....

Maybe even this summer - 2012...

We are glad to see that the science is settled until the next prognostication... can you say Harold Camping?

Google "Arctic to be ice free by" and wade through the 750,000,000 hits (as of Feb 24, 2012) to see if there is a consensus among Ice Free Arctic predictors. Take your time. We'll wait. The first few pages of hits ought to convince you that there is no consensus and that some predictive years have already passed without an ice free Arctic materializing. So, who knows? Well, apparently nobody. Note the 'mays' and 'coulds' included in most of the predictions. The science is not settled and the predictions of the learned might as well be based on a crystal ball at this point in history.

Here is news on the Arctic meltdown throughout the 20th century. We are still waiting for sea levels to rise and flood coastal cities  from all the warming that was going on during the last century.

Scientists do themselves and the public a disservice when they delude themselves into believing they know more than they do. Someday the Arctic may be ice free as it has in the past. We survived. Acuna matata.