The latest issue of the New Scientist features a series of articles on climate change deniers (see below). The second – “Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic” compares “climate” deniers with deniers of the holocaust, 9/11, Aids, vaccine, evolution and the harmful effects of tobacco. On this last issue I posted last year “Big Tobacco and Climate Change Skeptics”
Alternatively consider these two arguments.
1. The proposition that smoking is harmful to health was initially based on a study of 34,000 British Doctors. The study itself was “heralded a new type of scientific research”. The results have been replicated, refined and further issues identified. To deny that smoking is harmful to health is equivalent to denying a simple fact. By implication you are going against science, so must either have an ulterior motive or be a crank.
2. The proposition that the climate system will be changed catastrophically is agreed upon by a very large number of scientists, as a result of a huge numbers published papers, using similar empirical methods to that used in medical research. So those who oppose the AGW consensus, must be equivalent to those who oppose the medical consensus on smoking.
The two research programs have therefore similarities
- The level of effort and funding put into them.
- The use of empirical methods.
They diverge in the statistical significance of the results, the replication of results by independent research, the sample sizes and the publication of the underlying data. On all of these issues, climate science is vastly inferior to the medical science.
It is therefore my contention is that bad science seeks to piggy-back on good science. If the results of climate change science were so clearly unambiguous, then the counter-arguments would be easily dismissed by clear presentation of the science. But there are deep flaws in the science, so smears are necessary.
The New Scientist has abandoned clear presentation of science to the lay person in favour of rhetoric and smears.
Hatip wattsupwiththat From their article is the following.
Here’s links to all the New Scientist articles on “denial”. They did include one article from Michael Fitzpatrick that is a feeble attempt at balance, but even it too strays into the ugly territory of comparing climate skeptics with AIDS deniers.
- Special report: Living in denial Opinion > Special Report p35 From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why do so many people refuse to accept the evidence?
- Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic Opinion > Special Report pp36-37 There are clear lines between scepticism and denial, but telling them apart can be tricky in the real world, says Michael Shermer
- Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth Opinion > Special Report pp38-41 Denialism satisfies deep emotional needs. That makes it easy to encourage and hard to counter, says Debora MacKenzie
- Living in denial: How corporations manufacture doubt Opinion > Special Report p41 If the truth is inconvenient, put up a smokescreen instead. It works wonders for big business, argues Richard Littlemore
- Living in denial: Unleashing a lie Opinion > Special Report pp42-43 It’s easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down, says Jim Giles
- Living in denial: Questioning science isn’t blasphemyOpinion > Special Report p44 Michael Fitzpatrick argues that calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective
- Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon Opinion > Special Report p45 We must let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal, says Michael Shermer
More evidence today emerges that the UN IPCC, and its Chairman, Dr Pauchari are incapable of putting their own house in order.
1. Donna Laframboise (sourced Bishop Hill & EU Referendum) as numerous citations to the WWF’s campaigning papers, where it is the sole source cited. As she says of the organization:-
“Many of those associated with the WWF are lovely human beings. But that doesn’t change the fact that the WWF is not a neutral, disinterested party. It has an agenda, an ax to grind, a definite point-of-view. Rather than being a scientific organization, it is a political one. In the UK, the media aptly calls the WWF a “pressure-group.””
2. Climate Change impacts on risks hunger and malaria, were not properly assessed according to M. Goklany at Wattsupwiththat. With respect to hunger, the climate change impact of hunger risks are small compared with other (omitted) impacts. Due to malaria, the population at risk from other factors exceeds the population at risk from unmitigated climate change. The danger from these, is that policy makers will get an unbalanced view of the severity of global warming in relation to other factors.
Like with the Himalayan glaciers and water stress there is not just a failure to give an objective and balanced assessment of the science. There is appears to be very partisan attitudes expressed by the authors, with no proper filtering by the Review Editors. This is despite the guidelines (see below) provided for review comments. The control systems appear to have been inadequate to counter the partisan aims of those in the institution, not least by their Chairman, Dr Pauchari. The only way to separate the science from the rhetoric is to have an independent audit of the control systems, with recommendations implemented for AR5.
• Substantive comments require full and proper consideration. The Principles Governing IPCC
Work state that:
o genuine controversies should be reflected adequately in the text of the Report and
o it is the role of the Review Editors to advise the lead authors on how to handle
contentious/controversial issues
• You must record the outcome of these discussions in this document, under the column ‘Notes
of the Writing Team’.
Summary
The UN IPCC needs independent oversight. Firstly, to audit the AR4 document. Secondly to lay down internal control procedures. Thirdly to implement these controls over the AR5 document. I cover the reasons why an inquiry is needed, hypothetical precedents (in the UK) for an inquiry and areas an inquiry might cover.
Reasons for an Inquiry into UN IPCC AR4
- Failure to conform to scientific procedures (1). The retractions of the claim that in AR4 that the Himalayan Glaciers will be mostly gone by 2035. (Exposed by the Sunday Times, with further exposes by The Economist and the Sunday Mail). The UN IPCC not only quoted from a non-peer-reviewed paper (By WWF – who have also apologized for the error), but wrongly attributed some conclusions and also added it was “highly likely”, giving a false veneer of
- Conflict of Interest. The allegations that the Chairman of UN IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri, may have derived personal benefit from these exaggerations (see Telegraph and EU Referendum), as well as, allegedly, being a beneficiary of warming alarmism. For instance through renewables, oil companies and the carbon market. He also heads up a research institute, the British arm of which may to be in contravention of UK charity law. (Here, & here)
- Failure to conform to scientific procedures (2). Claims today (Jan 24th) in the Sunday Times that global warming causes an increase in the severity of storms and floods is based on “an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny – and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.” AR4 is thus alleged to have used conclusions that are known to be flawed.
- Failure to evaluate the positives as well as the negatives of Global Warming. Water shortages as a result of global warming is given as a major reason for climate change. However, according to Wattsupwiththat (here and earlier here), the AR4 only included those forecast to see become water stressed (less than 1000m3 per annum), whilst omitting to show those who would cease to be water stressed. In nearly every scenario, more would benefit that would lose. Both sets of figures come from the one report – indeed the same table. This implies a significant deviation from objective science.
Precedents for an Inquiry
Consider three (hypothetical) scenarios form the UK.
1. The police investigation into a (possibly) racially-motivated murder is flawed, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The Chief Superintendant blames it on lack of funds for staff training, having previously said race was not a motive.
2. A profitable, listed company goes bust as a result of long-term massaging of the figures. This occurs three months after a respected accountancy firm signs off the annual accountants with no adverse comments. A senior partner says that the auditors were denied access to certain data, but had a signed note from the CFO that another accountancy firm had reviewed that data as part of a management-consultancy exercise. The CFO claims that the company was sound, and has an independent audit to prove it.
3. A highly-rated hospital turns out to have significantly higher death-rates than the average. The hospital chief executive says that it is due to having to cut back on the cleaning, having previously stated that the figures were flawed and politically biased.
In every case, the press and opposition politicians, would be asking for independent enquires (to assess the extent of the problem and to make preventative recommendations for the future), the suspensions of those involved and the sacking of the top person in the organization. So why no such questions, when there is a serious procedural failing in (probably) the most important scientific report of all time? A report that could adversely impact the living standards of billions of people should be to the highest scientific standards ever achieved.
It is not a minor mistake to misquote and embellish a tract from a campaigning group – and then say the forecast is highly likely, without any statistical analysis. This report is written by top Phd’s in their field, not first-year undergraduates. They should know how to assess reports, and draw accurate conclusions based on the evidence.
Further, whilst it is right for the UN IPCC to recognize the error and apologize, it is not for that organization to say, without internal investigation, that this is an isolated incident.
There should be an independent audit of all the report, to make sure that it is uniformly based on clearly-defined scientific standards. The starting point of an audit should be an evaluation of the laid-down scientific standards, and the documented internal control procedures for evaluating the adherence to those standards.
Areas of a full audit might include:-
- That the report should is a balanced assessment of the current state of the science. At a minimum, noting competing views where it comes down on one side.
- That the criteria of acceptance based should rank “peer review” by publication.
- Any statistical probabilities to be verified by trained statisticians.
- Assumptions, where made, should be identified.
- Measurement errors compared to the changes measured.
- The robustness of conclusions over differing timescales. For instance the correlations between increase in CO2 and temperature changes should not be over a defined period, but should test for a decade
- Gaps in the knowledge identified and put into the context of known factors and measurement errors.
- To note the relative standpoints of lead authors of parts of the report in respect to the established science. That is to whether they have recent, novel or controversial standpoints. And to the extent to which this influenced their review comments.
- For recently published peer-reviewed articles central to the aspect, whether it firmly establishes new ground in the debate.
Vincent Shand
You are quite right to draw the similarities between long-term economic and climate forecasting. Both are based upon measuring a statistical trend, adding various assumptions (theoretical or experiential) and extrapolating. In both we need to understand the fundamental relationships that exist. The following is my attempt to amplify this thought, indicating how climate change science can learn from the theory and forecasting of the senior science.
|
Economic Theory & Forecasting |
Climate Theory & Forecasting |
|
1. Liberalisation tends to increase the rate of growth.
|
1. There is a general relationship between the levels of greenhouse gases and global temperatures.
|
|
2. A long-term increase in the supply of money (in excess of the demand for it, and net exportation to other countries) will lead to higher prices.
|
2. A substantial increase in the output of greenhouse gases (in excess of the absorption rates by oceans and the heat loss into outer space) will lead to higher temperatures.
|
|
3. Eventually diminishing returns will set in. That is each successive incremental increase in x will have a lesser impact on y. For instance, the contribution to profit of the first item sold will be greater than the second, which in turn will be greater than the third. Maximum profit will therefore be less than at infinite output.
|
3. Eventually diminishing returns will set in. That is each successive incremental increase in x will have a lesser impact on y. The greenhouse blanket effectively raises global temperatures by 33 degrees. Anthropogenic emissions have added 1% to this. A linear relationship would be 0.33 degrees versus an observed rise of about 0.7 degrees. You must either assume increasing returns, or some un-measured knock-on impacts (positive feedbacks) to say that the warming is mostly anthropogenic.
|
|
4. There are always cycles. Government actions to avoid downturns will merely mean a bigger downturn later.
|
4. There have always been climatic cycles. In the past two million years we have had cycles of 100,000 years of ice ages, interrupted by 10,000 years of warmer periods. There is considerable evidence (both statistical and from historical records) that there were warmer periods in early Medieval, Roman and Bronze Age times. Although anthropogenic factors may have minor short-term influence, on a millennial timescale we are due another ice age.
|
|
5. Alfred Marshall’s most original contribution to economics was the elasticity of price. In particular, a small change in demand will lead to a large change in price is there is no close substitute. For this reason, governments have found it easy to raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol and petrol, as there are no close substitutes.
|
5. Alfred Marshall’s most original contribution to economics was the elasticity of price. In particular, a small change in demand will lead to large changes in price is there is no close substitute. We use fossil fuels to power our cars and heat our homes, as the substitutes (nuclear, wind, solar) are much more expensive. We use cars to travel in, as the alternative public transport is often far more time consuming and less tailored to our specific needs. The implication is that carbon taxes will have to be very high to generate a significant drop in carbon usage.
|
|
6. Arthur Pigou introduced into economics the idea of benefit-cost analysis. A given policy improves the general welfare if the time-valued benefits exceed the time-valued costs. However, these are actual costs. Actual costs usually over-run where they are state-run, (particularly when representing conflicting interest groups), non-standard, and large-scale.
|
6. Arthur Pigou’s benefit-cost analysis has implications for climate-change policy, as recognized by the Stern Review. A given policy improves the general welfare if the time-valued benefits exceed the time-valued costs. However, these are actual costs. The Stern Review did not take into account costs usually over-run where they are state-run, (particularly when representing conflicting interest groups), non-standard, and large-scale. The Copenhagen Accord is a political fudge, for the biggest international state-run, unique project in history. The Stern Review discounted future costs and benefits by 0.1%, virtually eliminating the time-value aspect and took the most extreme forecast of the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet even on this basis, many policies, such as wind farms. would have costs far in excess of any benefits.
|
|
7. Every economic action may have unintended consequences. This can be beneficial to society (Adam Smith’s idea of self-interested individuals working for the common good) or harmful (a drunken driver losing control of his car and killing a pedestrian).
|
7. Every climate-change policy action may have unintended consequences. Climatology certainly provides employment for a lot of academics (here and here) former politicians, political activists and journalists. Along with (alleged) corrupt profiteering by individuals and multinationals. For instance, bio-fuels have slightly lower emissions than fossil fuels. However, they compete with food production (doubling world food prices in the last five years) and give considerable economic incentives to chop down the rainforests (which absorb CO2). So for little or no net benefit to the environment, the poorest in the world have their food priced beyond their reach.
|
|
8. However, these are generalisations. Although we can say that liberalisation has caused big changes in growth rates (West Germany 1948, Japan 1955, South Korea 1960s, China 1979 & 1988, India in early 1990s) there is no clear relationship between the quantity of liberalization and the subsequent growth engendered. As Hayek said, in dealing with essentially complex phenomena, we are restricted to making pattern predictions. However, if we fail to rank the relative import of various phenomena in their correct order, then our understanding will be flawed. Yet the relative import, or even the full list, might be unknown, or changing over time.
|
8. However, these are generalisations. Although there is a loose empirical correlation between the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the average global temperatures, this correlation breaks down when we investigate more closely. There was no warming in two periods of phenomenal economic growth (1945 to 1973 & 2000 to 2008), but there was significant warming in two periods when economic growth collapsed (1914 to 1940 & 1973 to 1998). As Hayek said, in dealing with essentially complex phenomena, we are restricted to making pattern predictions. However, if we fail to rank the relative import of various phenomena in their correct order, then our understanding will be flawed. Yet the relative import, or even the full list, might be unknown, or changing over time. Further, in denying the vast bulk of evidence that climate has fluctuated through human history, the scientific consensus appears to be ranking anthropogenic factors much higher then a more balanced assessment.
|
|
9. In the long-term the statistical regularities always break down. This is particularly when there is a structural change, such as the credit crunch. The paradox with forecasting is that when you most need the forecasts is when there is an empirical break with the past.
|
9. In the long-term the statistical regularities always break down. This is particularly when there is a structural change, such as anthrogenic pollution, elimination of forests and creation of urban landcapes. The paradox with forecasting is that when you most need the forecasts is when there is an empirical break with the past.
|
NB. This has not been posted as a comment on John Redwood’s website as it both gets off the major point of his posting and is much too long.
The Chinese government needs to be congratulated in recognizing that decisions are made for scientific reasons. Should they find reasons toraise the barrier for demarcation between science and non-science (and Climategate suggests that this is required) then any objectives agreed at Copenhagen are null and void. This is through their insistence on including references to the science in the second paragraph
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are needed according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions as to hold the increase in global emissions below 2 degrees Celsius, and to take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity.
There are two mentions of the science and each poses problems.
Cuts needed according to science
What if the science (as shown in the consensus under the umbrella of the UN IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, or is undermined by new evidence or counter-arguments? Then although there is a recognition that the consensus recommends deep cuts in emissions, such cuts are not actually required. It removes governments a stage from actually recognizing the need for cuts, to recognizing the conclusions that existing science draws are for drastic cuts. If one raises the barrier for admissible science from being peer-reviewed to having statistically significant and independently replicated results, then much of the existing science would become non-science.
Meeting “objective consistent with science”
If the forecast of an increase in global emissions of 2 degrees is shown to have no scientific basis, then doing nothing is not inconsistent with this statement.
Further issues
- “Cuts on the basis of equity” is a vague term. The poorer countries could insist that this is on the basis of per capita emissions, so the rich nations should have huge reductions, whereas the majority of nations in the world can continue increasing their emissions. Canada and the USA could insist that their particularly high consumption per capita is necessitated by a harsh winter climate. The rich countries could insist that reducing living standards of their people would be more calamitous than slowing growth in the poorer nations.
- There is no specific science mentioned. If meeting objectives is consistent with economic science then a much more cautious approach to cutting emissions will probably result. The UN IPCC has an economic cost per tonne of CO2. What if the cost of reductions far exceeds this level? Then reductions (or limitations on increases) will unscientific, as the costs would exceed the benefits.
In conclusion, the insertion of the term science into the Accord of 19th December, means that the boundaries between science and non-science could become crucial. If the Chinese Government fail to recognize the demarcation is between agreeing with the scientific consensus or not, then the science becomes narrower, but also more open.
Last night (Fri Dec 12th 2009) on Newsnight, the BBC carried another misleading report from Africa in conjunction with the Copenhagen talks. It claimed to show that the Nile Delta was threatened by rising sea levels, and the consequences were already happening. What the report showed was something more different. One of the earth’s oldest civilizations is being destroyed by a failed development project. It is not a global environmental problem caused by the rich industrial countries, but the adverse consequences of state-funded development projects.
From the report, I reach the following conclusions.
- The Aswan Dam is preventing the annual flooding of the area, bringing with it a layer of silt. This means that the land levels are falling as the protective fertile silt disappears. Salt water is coming nearer to the surface.
- This is being made, unintentionally worse by the farmers, who use sand to protect the roots of their crops. The sand is gathered from the dunes, which used to provide a natural sea defenses. This means more salt water is leeching through into the delta area, creating a vicious cycle.
- The silt was also good at retaining moisture. The sand is not, so dropping agricultural output is driving farmers away from farming.
- An alternative is fresh water fish farms. However this does not work as salt water is already penetrating the irrigation channels and artificial fertilisers leave toxins harmful to fish.
- A government project to attract graduates to farm the area was a complete flop. This was because, in an area of rich fertile land, there are pockets of poor quality soils. This is why in an agricultural area where population density is over 4000 per square mile, there is an area of 13 square mile available. It is not changing conditions, but because the land was always poor. Alternatively, the well-educated who it was supposed to attract, are not interested in scratching a living farming five acres of land.
I have transcribed / paraphrased most of the report below, so that readers can evaluate my conclusions for themselves. The full report (from around 22.45 mins) can be viewed in the UK here for the next few days. If someone cares to do a full transcription, or notices any inaccuracies, please leave in the comments and I will update.
Evidence from the sea shows the original place where Anthony first met Cleopatra. The sea level has risen throughout history. According to the UNIPCC this is likely to accelerate…..
The Nile Delta is one of the most intensely cultivated, densely populated areas on the planet. Covering 3% of Egypt’s land area has two thirds its people & over half its crops. The UNIPCC reckons that it is one of the three most vulnerable delta areas in the world. ……..A rise in sea levels of one metre would submerge 20% of the delta under salt water, displacing up to eight million people.
It is changing now – salt water is pushing up from deep underground. For farmers the only solution is to replace the topsoil with sand to protect the roots of their crops. They get the sand from the sand dunes the natural defense from the sea. (Christian Fraser the reporter). What is more for thousands of years the Nile floods deposited a rich, fertile silt on the land, raising it a little bit further from sea level. But since the Aswan Dam was completed in the 1970s the flow of the river has been more carefully controlled and this part of the delta no longer floods. So farmers increasingly have to crow crops that are resistant to saline water, like rice, guava and date palm. Others have given up crops completely. They have gone from rice to fish farms.
Abdul Hameed has four large pools where he rears his fresh water fish. He depends on this large system of irrigation channels that brought sweet-tasting Nile water into the delta. But today even these are polluted with toxins and agricultural runoffs that are poisoness to fish.
This is a small community in the heart of the delta that was built with government money to house young graduates. They were supposed to come here to farm. Each of these houses comes with five acres of land. …It is practically deserted. A ghost town – and that because everyone knows that the land around here is completely unsuitable for farming and what is more the rising sea is just 200 metres away. The only people who make a go of it here are squatters with nothing left to lose. Of 1670 houses, only 130 are occupied.
But there is one man who mat have the answers. Helmy Abouleish is cultivating crops in the desert in the outer reaches of the Nile valley and he is doing it using revolutionary methods. Says that the higher the organic content, the better the water holding capacity. (So uses chicken and cow manure. Use it for organic farming This could well be the answer. ) No one precisely knows when the seas will rise or how dramatic its effects will be, but Egypt must start preparing now.
Substantiation of claims
- The land level is falling, as at the end Christian Farmer says “No one precisely knows when the seas will rise….”
- Sand does not hold water.
- But silt does.
- Direct from the report.
- This is part of the area of 700 square miles that will be flooded if sea levels rise by 0.5 metres. This will displace 3 million people. This translates to 4285 people per square mile. In the township there were 1670 dwellings. Each came with 5 acres of land, making at least 8350 acres or 13.05 square miles.
In conclusion, it is a further example of where pressing anthropogenic environmental issues are local and not global. As has been long known, the natural processes that allowed the world’s first civilization to develop, have been cancelled the Aswan High Dam by an ill-thought grandiose development project.
NB, I also saw a BBC report on salt trade in West Africa in the previous week. Here, rising temperatures were meant to be undermining the camel salt trade. The report showed that the transportation costs (in man days) were probably reduced by over 90% through using a lorry. As a result of higher productivity, the salt traders were becoming better off.
John Redwood’s attempt to categorise the global warming skeptics is useful in show the different shades of opinion possible. Here I enlarge on my claim that the polarization of the debate is due to government-funding and a consequent lack of competition.
I posted
I appreciate your attempt to categorise the skeptics. It shows there are possible differences of opinion, even from a scientific starting point. A refreshing change from the mainstream media, which shows the sides as the extremes of the mainstream scientific consensus and a hodge-podge of deniers/conspiracy theorists.
To see why your view, Mr Redwood, is better one, one needs to consider that Climate Science is fundamentally an empirical science. It relies on confronting theories to the data. There are thus close parallels with economics, a more mature science. The predominant difference between the two is state-funding verses competition. In climate science, governments (and the UN) have funded a particular viewpoint, not only in theoretical fundamentals, but also in the forecasts. There is therefore a strong bias towards conformity. Dissenters are those who say it is a non-problem, or not a problem to get het up about. If their view prevailed, there would be a great loss of prestige (and jobs) for the majority. The way to establish one’s reputation is by conforming to the consensus in novel ways. For instance by making more extreme forecasts, or by relating every bit of unusual weather to the climate change.
In economics, reputations are established through novelty and dissent. But the established reputation of a senior professor, based on faulty research, can be torn apart by a sharp doctoral student. So assumptions are stated, statistical results published and conclusions are made tentative. Dissent leads to opportunities for further research and justification of research grants.
The problem that those interested in objective science, is that most of those in government do not see the problems that government-sponsored science can cause. All what is required is to state the issue forcefully enough and denigrate the opposition. Any failure is due to failure in getting message across. But just like in the economic consensus of the post-war period, error is reinforced, anomalies ignored, and the outsiders called extremists. We need to open up climate science to some real competition.
By empirical science I mean that theories are formulated into testable hypotheses and confronted with the data. A (peer-reviewed) paper is published on the results.
Further, from the results forecasting models are created to make pattern predictions for the future.
This is similar to economics, although there are some fundamental differences.
- In economics assumptions are stated and source data revealed. Climate science is much more ambiguous on this. Further in climate science it is not as necessary to reveal the statistical tests. For instance the R-squared statistic.
- In economics there is no consensus. Every school of thought is sub-divided into more groups than publishing academics. Also, any paper that makes bold claims is picked apart by some other academic. The way to establish one’s name is to establish novel theories or approaches, or just show the flaws in the theories of others. In climate science, conformity to established ideas seems to be the dominant culture, strongly backed by government funding.
- In economics there are lots of summary papers that critically assess the state of the debate. The success of these papers (which students use as a starting point) is dependent on being objective. In climate science the summary on the state of the science is through the UNIPCC , and dominated by the small group who publish the significant original papers, dominate the peer-review process and then co-author the chapters in the Assessment Reports
- In economics there are competing and fundamentally different forecasting models that have wide variations in their forecasts at any moment in time. They are updated constantly for new data. In climate science the main models rely on the same basic theoretical assumptions. They have consistently under-forecast the rise in CO2 and over-forecast the rise in temperatures.
- The competition and long-term experience in economic forecasting means that forecasts are mostly short-term. Forecasts implicitly admit that
- In the mainstream media, when somebody makes a sensational claim about the economy, you will usually (for the sake of balance) get somebody giving the contrary view. But when people predict that the Maldives will be submerged in a generation, or that the Arctic will be ice-free in 30 years, there is little demure.
The hacking of the CRU’s e-mails and the publication on the internet (see bishophill for a selection of the revelations; wattsupwiththat for an analysis of one e-mail) need to be put in the context of claims made for the status of the science.
The consensus is portrayed as being the mature science with the major issues being settled beyond reasonable doubt. By implication, anyone who disagrees with any of the conclusions is either crank, or is being paid to lie and mislead. The demarcation between science and non-science is implied as being agreeing, or not, with the consensus.
The revelations show that
- - That the science is partisan and the consensus dependent on a small number.
- - Leading figures do not think the science is settled.
- - They talk about controversies in areas that are core to the science.
- - Suggests manipulation of results to support the consensus, rather than objective science.
- - That peer reviews are not just a sifting valid science from the invalid, but also a way of suppressing science contrary to the consensus.
On the basis of the revelations:-
- The IPCC needs more balance and a proper independent editing of the next assessment report. There needs to be independent scrutiny to reflect the current state of the science and to properly assess the uncertainties. In accountancy you would not allow people to sign off their own expenses, even though the majority may be honest. In medicine, governments would you allow new drugs to become available without independent scrutiny and replication of the results. If the IPCC is so that the science is settled, then they would welcome independent scrutiny by statisticians of the robustness of the key model predictions.
- Copenhagen should be suspended until a true scientific consensus can be evolved.
In particular a) Until the Lindzen & Choi 2009 paper on climate sensitivities (comment here) can be reconciled with the climate models. b) A more balanced assessment of the medieval warm period can be established and its implications for the model assumptions with respect to the twentieth century warming.
- Governments should be more impartial in their funding of research. One way is to fund contrary views, to promote a more balanced understanding of the climate.
- The BBC needs to allow again contrary opinions to be aired, just as it is required in any other area of opinion. They should recognize that the pronouncements made by scientists are sometimes heavily influenced by self-interest and promotion of their particular belief-systems.
- Journalists in general need to ask for source references on press releases and “reports”.
- Advertisements on CO2 reductions need to carry a warning that the science is not uncontroversial, and that the belief by a majority of experts does not mean that the science will not be over-turned at some later date.
In conclusion, the major result it that climatologists are not holders of fundamental truths, discovered through unimpeachable processes. They may be very bright people, full of energetic zeal and at the top of their field. But they are also filled with ambition and fond of their status. They will therefore be keen to defend their results from attack. That it is to say that they are not infallible gods but human beings.
A comment thrown at the “skeptics” or “deniers” is that they use a similar tactics to Big Tobacco in the fight against the harm that tobacco does to health(1). That is they issue false data and research to throw policy makers off the scent. Further, it is claimed they use similar arguments as Big Tobacco in opposing the climate change science.
This is a misleading analogy in four areas.
- On the tobacco issue, the first major study on the link between lung cancer, heart attacks and smoking was ground-breaking research based on questionnaires returned from over 34000 British doctors. This study was continued for 50 years, reinforcing the original findings. Further, independent studies not only corroborated these initial findings, but enhanced the detail. Much of the initial temperature data for AGW studies were more ambiguous, reliant on a loose correspondence between the rise in greenhouse gases and average global temperatures. Moreover, data is often not properly archived, whether early studies (eg. Jones et al 1990), or later ones (e.g. Kaufman et al 2009)
- On tobacco issues, it is possible to have a control group. That is, you can follow the health of a large representative group of people who smoke, and follow a similar cross-section of society group who do not smoke. The control for anthropogenic warming is temperature histories. That is, if recent warming is unprecedented in a thousand years or more, it can only be explained by anthropogenic factors. If however, the 20th century warming was no bigger than similar warmings at 1,000 and 2,000 years ago, then the anthropogenic element is likely to be small. Not only has the two most influential past temperatures reconstructions showing the former case have been rebutted (MBH 1998 – see especially Mcintyre 2008b and Briffa 2000), but also the total temperature reconstructions that show the medieval period was at least as warm as currently outnumber 7 to 1 that show the it was cooler.
- The selection criteria on medical research is published, along with sample sizes and the statistical tests on the results. Therefore, statisticians can check the results. The statistician and climate skeptic Steve McIntyre has his work cut out to get this information. See for instance the battle for the Briffa’s Yamal data or the Jones information.
- In general, the vast majority of medical research published in peer-reviewed journals is later refuted, or at least undermined. It is often of poor quality. Therefore in medicine, a peer reviewed research is but the first stage in getting an idea established. It needs to be replicated by other studies and cross-checked. Climate science is summarized by the UN IPCC is a form that reinforces a partisan viewpoint, rather than drawing conclusions through comparing and contrasting. For instance Steve McIntyre has posted his reviewer’s objections to the analysis of past temperatures in the 2007 assessment report, and the rejections. In the light of his subsequent exposure if the Yamal paper, these turn out to be entirely valid.
For the analogy to be upheld, climatologists need to show that their research programme is comparable in robustness and replication as the medical research was in the 1970s. My contention is that it falls far short. By implication, those who are either skeptical of the robustness of the results, or who deny completely the validity of the research programme, have much surer foundations for their doubts, even before presenting any research to the contrary.
Vincent Shand
1.See, for instance, Thomas Fuller (who, seeks communication between the opposing sides) at examiner.com
The fact that for many of the staunchest activists any bending is tantamount to surrender makes compromise difficult. They take their lessons from what happened with Big Tobacco, where the strategy of introducing doubt into the science allowed them to postpone accountability for their actions. They must take a blood oath or something to never admit error and never back down. I don’t admire them for that–they should trust the power of the truth.
