Who cares about the ‘consensus’

This is a very quick post, as I am a little challenged for time at the moment.

I came accross a very good post over at Climate etc. regarding the ‘consensus‘. One of the most interesting arguments that I picked up was that we should not care about the consensus argument, as consensus is not the benchmark of good science. Judith Currie wades into the question with the following:

The climate community worked for 20 years to establish a consensus.  The impact of the consensus probably peaked in 2006-2007, at the time of publication of the AR4.  Courtesy of the CRU emails, we now understand the sausage making that went into creating the consensus.  Manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debate, to the detriment of both.  Its time to abandon the concept of consensus; consensus matters far less than simply being right and the arguments themselves that ought to be the focus for discussion.

My concern about the use of the supposed consensus to stifle the debate is more mundane. For most people, there is only a limited interest in the climate change debate. Unlike those who take an active interest, they are not going to delve into philosophy of science, or read the complex discussions about what is good and what is not good science. I suspect that, for many people, the idea of a consensus of scientists will simply be taken as being an indicator of the truth of the argument.

I agree that there is a difficulty of what the consensus might be about – e.g. the planet has warmed versus we are all doomed if we do not change our behaviour – but this is perhaps not how most of the public might see it. The way that the consensus is presented is that there is broad agreement on the latter of my two examples.

As such, I think the promotion of the idea of a consensus really matters. It is important that we take into account the nature of the interest of most people in the climate change debate, and recognise that those who are less interested will often only take home simple messages from what they hear/see/read. The message of a ‘consensus’ is powerful, and is therefore worth addressing.

The Impact of Climategate II

There has been a lot of talk of that Climategate 2 has had less impact than the original climate gate. My own contribution to the revelations was to reveal the horrendous story in which the ‘team’ sought to have a journal editor sacked for allowing the publication of an article that disagreed with their views. It was a clear case of an attempt to corrupt peer reviewed science. As such, I was pleased to find an open letter in the Wall Street Journal, which is written by scientists concerned at the nature and tenor of the debate on climate change. This is the discussion of the sacking.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

It is indeed very sad that association with positions  contrary to some people might be met with this kind of behaviour. However, the letter also covers some other points worth mentioning. For example:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

I remember reading the Ivar Giaever open letter, and should really have posted/commented upon it. I have also read about other shenanigans in which some have tried to manufacture the consensus through manipulation of statistics for support for climate alarmism (sorry, no reference to hand).

My guess is that, without the fear of career damage, the quest for grants, the dubious ‘consensus’ would look even more threadbare than it already is. For example, many years ago I heard a BBC Radio 4 interview* in which an anthropologist was researching the impact of climate change on hunter gatherers in Scandinavia. The interviewer was interested in climate change, but it was very clear that all the anthropologist wanted to do was discuss the interesting facets of the culture of the people under study. No doubt, the addition of climate change in his application for a research grant was useful.

Perhaps one day it will be possible for climate science to return to ‘normal science’ (I am aware that this is a problematic phrase, but seeking to stop contrary views is not ‘normal’ science in any reasonable interpretation). It certainly seems that the right questions are now being asked. In some ways, this may be of benefit to the wider realm of science; as anyone who is involved in critical positions on any subject will tell you, the effort of getting critiques of established thinking is always a challenge. I can only hope that, in addition to all of the negative aspects of climate science, there is a possibility that it will, in the end, raise some fundamental questions and encourage a more open approach to science.

In the meantime, sadly, the climate debate will be restricted by an oppressive system that seeks to stifle any contrary views. To be more positive, this may be on the road to change…..

*I am sorry to have two items unreferenced. For the 2nd example, it really was a long, long time ago…..

A (belated) Congratulations to the New Zealand Herald

My apologies for the lack of posts of late. This one has been at the back of my mind for some time. I have previously been very critical of the coverage of climate change in the New Zealand Herald. As such, I was pleasantly surprised to have seen an article which questions the validity of alarmist warming predictions by Jim Hopkins. I quote some sections below:

If you’re worried about all the things you have to worry about, cheer up. Here’s one thing you won’t have to worry about any more. Global warming (remember, this was a prediction) will be the Great Disappearing Act of 2011. It will sink like a stone, exit stage left and generally melt away. Whoopee! [and]

We just don’t need to worry about it any more. That’s all. The prediction holds. Global warming has disappeared.

It is refreshing to see that such a piece published. My view is that there is a debate, and the media should address both sides of the debate. That is, that the media should cover both the alarmist and the skeptical view points evenly, or at least give some kind of balance. As such, I am in the surprising position of saying congratulations to the New Zealand Herald.

However, before getting carried away, a quick search for the term climate change also pulled up an article reviewing the year for the US, and which says (emphasis added):

Pipeline opponents, who included thousands of protesters outside the White House, blasted it as a retrograde step that deepened fossil fuel dependence even as a biblical succession of extreme weather – tornadoes, floods, fires, droughts and hurricanes – associated with climate change saddled the economy with 12 US$1 billion events.

There is no evidence that links these kinds of extremes with climate change (e.g. see here for a commentary on a recent IPCC report by Judith Currie). The New Zealand Herald is not alone in attribution of extreme weather events to climate change, which seems to be a commonplace in many media outlets. However, it is the kind of reporting that feeds into public alarm, and does so with no science to back up the alarm.

However, having put this niggle out of the way, the Jim Hopkins article is a good start. All we need now is some reporting on the findings of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (regarding the dodgy dealings on the New Zealand temperature record), and perhaps some reporting on the murky involvement of NIWA employees in the manipulation of peer review.

However, all credit to the NZ Herald for publishing a view from outside the alarmist camp!

Happy New Year and let’s hope for more balance in 2012!

New Zealand Herald – BEST coverage

I have just taken a look at the Herald’s coverage of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study. This is how it starts:

A prominent physicist and global warming sceptic spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The article then goes on to point out the source of the funding as follows:

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held sceptic theories in analysing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate”, the British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Note that there is the use of ‘deniers’ in this section. Not sceptics, but deniers. Also, take a look at the article, and note the tone – the way that the funding is portrayed. As will be discussed later, an odd portrayal:

One-quarter of the US$600,000 ($738,000) to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of sceptic groups and the Tea Party movement. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizeable greenhouse gas emissions.

However, also note that, the source of the funding being from sceptical sources is used to suggest that this gives the report greater credibility.However, certainly amongst the community of sceptical bloggers, the BEST study was never seen as anything but (all hoped at least) a genuine attempt to examine the temperature data with ‘fresh eyes’.

The BEST project was generally well received in principle, but linking  Richard Muller with so-called ‘deniers’ and using a headline saying ‘Sceptic forced to admit globe is really warming’, would suggest that he was on the ‘hard’ sceptic side of the debate. Note how Muller is apparently ‘forced to admit‘, when good scientists do not need to be forced to admit. A good scientist commences with a view that the empirical data will, in the end, be the determinant of their view on the study. By using the word ‘forced’ they are implying that Muller went into the study as a  denier, rather than as a good scientists, and the evidence overwhelmed his desire to ‘deny’. The whole tone of the article is denigrating Muller’s integrity (albeit in a subtle way), and also trying to lend additional authority to the BEST study; the subtext is that if a ‘swivel eyed denier’ can no longer deny, it must be true.

The problem is that BEST is not in the hands so-called deniers, and Muller is hardly as portrayed. One of the contributing authors for the paper, Judith Currie, has been critical of the way BEST portrayed data, in that they do not place enough emphasis on the apparent stopping of temperature rises. This is reported here in the UK’s Mail, with Currie’s commentary on the mail story, and a summary of a later discussion with Muller. The point is that these are hardly a group of ‘swivel eyed deniers’. Furthermore, the BEST project’s sponsors are not a they seem. From the Best website, the funders are:

• The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
• William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
• Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
• Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
• The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

And also,  underneath; ‘This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 ($188,587)’

You will note the selective choice of donors in the Herald article (see above). There is a well known  fallacy in deductive logic, known as argumentum ad verecundiam, or argument from authority, or using the status of the utterer as an argument (more subtle than I portray it here…) . We now have an argument in which the authority is being bolstered by portraying the authors of the study as sceptics forced to recant against their wills. Again, it is worth noting that Currie, one of the authors of the BEST papers is no sceptic, except in as far as she has concerns that the science of climate change needs to be critically evaluated.

There is also a subtext in the whole article that this is proof for climate alarmism, as in the following quotes:

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist, said Muller’s study “may help the world’s citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it”.

Some of the most noted scientific sceptics are no longer saying the world isn’t warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it’s too expensive to do something about, according to Otto.

This would be to characterise all on the sceptical side of the debate as questioning that temperatures have risen over the last 100 years. As I pointed out in a previous post, citing an essay of Don Aitken, that there are a range of views and positions on the sceptical side. The key linkage over the spectrum of views is that the influence of anthropogenic factors on the climate is questioned, with some sceptics fully accepting the temperature records that are widely cited. As such, the BEST study takes the debate no further forward in these cases. Also, there is the small detail of whether there is a ‘pause’ in the warming. Note the way that the article frames the issue (see first quote) as the world is warming. However, this does not appear to be the case. I again turn to Currie’s Climate etc. blog, where she discusses the issue:

Actually, four different questions seem to be floating around in terms of the BEST media coverage:

1. Has the earth been warming? Addressing this question in a sensible way requires that a specific period be specified, presumably in the context of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
2. Is global warming over?  Addressing this question requires a prediction of future temperatures, and we can’t really answer that with the data.
3. Has global warming stopped?  Addressing this questions requires clarifying whether it is only the actual global temperature under discussion, or whether it is the attribution to humans that has stopped (i.e. beyond the expected range of natural variability)?
4. Has there been a pause in the global warming?  Addressing this question requires a clarification of of the specific period of interest, and whether the “pause” indicates zero temperature change, or a rate of warming that is less than the expected temperature change.

What does the BEST land temperature data have to say about global warming?  Not much, since the BEST data only covers the land (~30% of the global area).  The BEST land data should not be used to infer anything quantitative about GLOBAL warming.

Currie later suggests that:

This concept of a recent pause in the warming seems to be fairly widely accepted by many mainstream consensus scientists (e.g. the recent Greenwire article),with explanations ranging from aerosols, to solar, to oceans.

In other words, if the BEST study is accepted, it does not confirm global warming, does not confirm the causes of global warming (if it took place), and most importantly, the general view amongst scientists is that there is no global warming taking place now! However, is any of this to be seen in the New Zealand Herald Article? Not a sight of it.

Instead, we have invented bogey-men, cut and paste evil donors, all used to indirectly and oddly bolster the authority of the BEST research, when  the actual quality of the scientists and their work should have been sufficient. We have cut and paste alarmism, and no discussion of debates such as the pause in the warming, or any nuance in the story at all, except to briefly mention that Muller does not see the study as a confirmation of the IPCC.

Again, shabby, shabby journalism on climate change from the Herald……

Note: I am personally giving it time for the BEST study to be digested before having a view either way. It is also notable that the papers from the study have yet to be peer-reviewed, though I would guess that the findings might quickly find a home in some of the journals that seem to strongly back the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. As a matter of interest, the pre-publication of the papers has caused a bit of a storm, with some arguing that this corrupts the peer review process. However, the purpose of the post is not to go into the details of BEST research and publication, but rather how the NZ Herald have portrayed the study.

The IPCC as a Scientific Organisation?

We hear it endlessly. The IPCC uses the best scientists in the world for the compilation of the IPCC reports. The problem is that it is simply not true.

There are undoubtedly some very good scientists working for the IPCC. The problem is that many of them are not. I have been following work of Donna Laframboise in investigating the IPCC on her blog No Frakking Consensus for some time, and picked up that she has now published a book length critique of the IPCC. Donna has, for a long time, been picking through both the CVs of the IPCC contributors, as well as their processes. The result is a rather ugly picture of an institution that was supposed (and purports) to be the gold standard of science.

I wrote about one of Donna’s findings a long while ago, in which Donna wrote a piece about Dr. Sari Kovats. Kovats was awarded her PhD in 2010, but had been working as a scientist for the IPCC since 1994, and was given the role of a lead author three years before being awarded her PhD. This is but one of the astonishing examples that Donna uncovers. An equal concern is the number of key people in the IPCC that are affiliated with activist groups such as WWF, or Greenpeace. Then there is the process of peer review, or lack of it. The many tales of the conflicts of interest in the peer review process, and the lack of independent oversight make a dismal picture.

I would like to tell you that I have read the book already, but am waiting for the availability of the paper version (I hate reading on the screen, and it seems harder to concentrate on the content when I do so). However, the sample of the book on Amazon looks encouraging, and of course there has been the excellent work and investigations on Donna’s blog. As such, I suspect it will be a very good  read. Apparently the book is very well referenced and I suspect that the book will have some impact. For example,   the very fair minded Judith Currie, over at Climate etc., says the following (after a few minor critiques):

But overall, Donna Laframboise is to be congratulated for writing an important book.  Read it, it costs only $4.99 on Kindle.

So, how will this book be received by the climate establishment?  First, I suspect that they will attempt to smear Laframboise as a denier.  This is not the case.  Her prime motivation seems to be a concern about free speech; she has a long standing involvement in free speech issues in Canada.  Second, people will pick apart some of the minor points that are arguably suboptimal interpretations.

In terms of the broader audience, I have to say that I hope that this book leads to the discontinuation of the IPCC after the AR5 report (which is already well underway, and is arguably sufficiently tarnished that it is likely to have much less influence than previous reports.)

The following is a long quote lifted from a section of the book in the National Post, about some of the (ahem)….interesting CVs of IPCC ‘scientists’:

For example, Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his master’s degree in 2001.

How can a young man without even a master’s degree become an IPCC lead author? Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services.

It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who was a trainee, who lacked a master’s degree, and was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

My suspicion is that the book will just be the start. One of the key points used to promote the credibility of the global warming scare is the credibility of the IPCC as a rigorous scientific institution. Whilst there may be many good scientists working for the IPCC, I suspect this book will  lead more people to call in to question the credibility of the institution. In one sense I feel rather sorry for the scientists who have contributed in good faith, as some of the tarnish on the IPCC may eventually rub off on them. If I have time, once I get my copy, I will try to remember to do a full review. For those keen to find out for themselves, the pdf version can be purchased here, and a Kindle version on Amazon here. Please feel free to post your reviews in the comments section.