Why not let honest science take its course?

cartoonAnthropogenic (human-caused) global warming enthusiast David Barnhill spills a lot of ink in a recent letter (Feb. 13) trying mightily to explain away the inconvenient truth that average global temperatures have not risen over the last 18 years — a result wholly unpredicted by the prevailing AGW computer models. He does this mostly by referring vaguely to what “science has revealed” (after the fact) about the hiatus, then dismissing those who point out this elephant in the room as … part of a Koch brothers-funded “denial campaign.”

No surprise: When your evidence and your arguments get a little shaky, haul out the Koch brothers and holler “Denier!”

But Mr. Barnhill’s struggle to account for the unexpected hiatus was a sideshow. His main “argument” against tolerating dissent is the tired myth of “97 percent scientific consensus.” This magic number is expected by Mr. Barnhill and his fellow believers to shut down debate — as if consensus and group-think are authorities unto themselves. (Recall the former 99 percent Earth-as-the-center-of-the-universe consensus.) So what compelling authority gave us the unassailable 97 percent AGW consensus? Harvard/MIT? Gallup? Mt. Sinai? Any of these would be more convincing than the actual source.

The oft-cited 97 percent originates primarily from Australian global warming activist John Cook’s 2013 article, “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature,” published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, and trumpeted far and wide ever since. Far from being authoritative, however, Cook’s “research” has drawn a litany of well-deserved criticism, even from many AGW adherents. 

It turns out the project was less a scientific investigation to determine consensus than a public relations exercise to establish a pre-ordained result, discourage dissent, and pump up the faithful — a pretty successful enterprise if the influence on Mr. Barnhill, President Obama (who likes to cite the number), and the media is any indication.

The goal of the original project was clear from the start — as revealed accidently by leaked communication among participants, including Cook himself: “[Several colleagues] and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game-changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.”

If that sounds a little contrived, even a fellow researcher wondered (in a leaked internal communication) why a major PR campaign for the not-yet-written paper was being planned before the research: “… I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in…”

Putting aside the shoot-first-aim-later marketing campaign, what of the methodology itself? The project purported to establish — by looking at the abstracts of several thousand papers of widely-varying levels of presumed reliability — the extent of a “consensus” on two statements: (1) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (which hardly anybody denies), and (2) that human activities have affected global temperatures to some unspecified extent. No quantification required.

Never mind whether such perceived effects are measurable, material, or harmful, much less whether the draconian regulatory remedies prescribed by the AGW crowd might have any chance of mitigating the anticipated adverse effects with or without crippling the global economy and sending us back to the Dark Ages. And never mind that at least one of Cook’s researchers supposedly reviewed 765 papers in three days. Those questions were ignored — all Cook’s team was looking for, essentially, was some minimal agreement that human action may have had some effect on changing planet temperatures — any effect whatsoever, no matter how conclusive or trivial. 

Predictably, Cook and his team quickly claimed to have found what they were looking for and then immediately put the PR plan into highly successful effect — which is why most of us have heard the 97 percent figure ad nauseum. Not everyone, however, was as impressed with Cook’s work as the president, the media, or Mr. Barnhill. 

Consider these observations by just a few of Cook’s academically accomplished critics:

•  Richard S.J. Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, found Cook’s reported results to be “… inconsistent and biased … not representative and contain[ing] many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low … Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested” (Energy Policy, 2014).

•  Professor David Legates, former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at Delaware University, published a paper showing that Cook’s study depended on mixing up several different and mutually exclusive definitions of the consensus, and his examination of Cook’s data (which Cook has only reluctantly — and sometimes accidentally — revealed) suggests that only 41 of 11,944 abstracts reviewed support the thesis that human activity is “very likely” causing most of the current warming (Science and Education, 2013).

•  Professor Jose Duarte, social scientist at Arizona State and self-described supporter of the AGW consensus, writes that the research by AGW activists was: “… completely invalid and untrustworthy (and by customary scientific standards, completely unpublishable.) … garbage…” with “… unbelievable bias and transparent motives of the raters” who “apparently collaborated with each other in their ratings” and exhibited “evidence of fraud.” Duarte concluded that the hostility of Cook’s Skeptical Science team to AGW skeptics should invalidate the entire study:

“…[T]hey really hate the dissenters … Their world view is extremely binary and hostile — most environmentalists are quite a bit more moderate and less hateful than they are … [T]he ‘study’ was a political operation from start to finish … We have explicit evidence that the raters cheated … and that some raters were pretty much willing to code anything as an endorsement [of the preferred AGW consensus.]

•  Likewise, Professor Mike Hulme, founder of Tyndall Centre — the UK’s national climate research institute — found Cook’s research to be: “… poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and … offers a depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ … dividing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’ … [T]hese people are still living … in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?”

David Barnhill should consider moving on as well — to an understanding that the believers’ 97 percent consensus article of faith is inaccurate, likely fraudulent, and basically meaningless. The flimsy research behind that number tells us nothing useful about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observations that most scientists believe C02 to be a greenhouse gas and many of them believe human activities have had some undefined and unmeasured effect on warming the planet — though none in the last 18 years and quite possibly no more than could also be accounted for by natural climate variation.

What happens if we let the much-feared scientific debate continue without trying to shut down the other side with ridicule and name-calling? At a minimum, we might benefit from taking a closer look at some of these key findings of International Panel on Climate Change 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5), as they weaken the case for attributing global warming to human influences:

• Discrepancies with climate model projections, not least the unpredicted and ongoing (now 18-year) warming hiatus;

• Decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2;

• Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012;

• Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent; and

• Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming.

Space doesn’t allow to even begin to identify the many areas of climate change research still under debate among mainstream scientists. So why not let honest science take its course — which is to pursue knowledge with unbiased research, rather than clumsy and misleading PR campaigns to promote who or who may not agree with whom on unclear positions to start with? Given the worldwide policy impacts of the AGW debate, we owe ourselves and our progeny no less.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Oregon Petition of over 30,000 scientists
    makes the Cooked “consensus “PR exercise campfire fuel .
    Considering it hasn’t warmed in over 18 years one has to immediately wonder how any of the 41 in Cooks survey could even say humans are very likely causing most of the current warming .

    41/30,000 is one tenth of one percent .
    In other words over 99% of scientists believe the statements they signed in the Oregon Petition saying:
    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide ,methane,or the other greenhouse gases is causing or will ,in the foreseeable future,cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate .”
    They also go on to express their view that there is substantial scientific evidence of many beneficial effects of increased carbon dioxide upon the natural
    plant and animal environment .

    Who exactly signed their names to the “scientific consensus ” survey of Cook ?

    That’s right not one .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Real science stands on its own merits. Real science is not afraid of challenges, in fact it welcomes challenge openly. Real science is not directed by emotions, politics, or money.

    As a theory becomes more complex error potential increases dramatically, or in the case of MMGW, it increases [i]exponentially[/i]. The idea that a theory requiring high volume storage and advanced computing techniques just to be modeled, would then be called “settled science” is beyond comprehension.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    GR82DRV, the “settled science ” comment shows a particular arrogance and disrespect of the scientific method . As you say beyond comprehension to most of us .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    I agree with all of you, but I’ll repeat it again.

    There is no proof whatsoever that there even is a ” greenhouse effect ” nor any such thing as a ” greenhouse gas “.

    That, in and of itself, is exhaustive proof that none of their temperature blathering is of any worth considering.

    They fail immediately on their most basic premise, so why bother talking about data points when there is nothing to relate them to ??!!

    The SCIENCE and LOGIC DENIERS are liars/idiots of the first order.

    If the rest of you want to keep talking to them on their turf, maybe you should be pointed out as just as logically inferior as they are.

    Why hold discourse with idiots ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    JayPee I’ve wondered the same thing on many occasions. I can only speak for myself but I watched and did little while astounded that the scam wasn’t exposed before it took flight . With a history of trust and deferment to scientists generally I assumed the big big hats would knock the legs out of the scam but the media for the most part bought it and the money was huge .
    Our mistake is thinking it is logical or based on real science. It is not and never was but they needed to hide the truth behind white coats and scary illusions . The Scary Global Warming Magic Show .
    When they knew the jig was up on Global Warming they quickly rebranded to Climate Change .You can hide anything inside the Climate Change Magic Box except scary global warming which has turned out to be a verified hoax .

    Scientists are stepping up and that is why they are trying to discredit them now .

    Why hold discourse with idiots you ask …because they had a free hand for too long and bullies need push back or what is the next freedom we give up ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    The analogy of MMGW to a religion is certainly valid, but I see it more as a [i]cult[/i]. That is, most of its adherents, especially the scientists, did not one day say to themselves, “I think I’ll sacrifice my scientific principles to promote a political ideal”. Instead they were drawn in by exploitation of there predilections and weaknesses.

    Over time many scientists have been so conditioned by self-contained group speak, grant funding, and peer acceptance that they have lost their ability to be scientifically objective. As the Marxist political agenda behind the MMGW cult does become revealed, even that does not trigger alarm bells for scientists who’s life exists within the university counter-culture community bubble.

    All this isn’t to say that many on the on the extreme left (Al Gore, et al), don’t know and direct the real purpose of this scam. The fact that they are able to fund it with our own tax dollars is simply brilliant.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.