Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology?

by Judith Curry

The authority of a scientific body is not undermined by questioning, but rather depends upon it – Beatty & Moore

At the Conference Circling the Square that I attended in Nottingham earlier this week, Mike Hulme gave a keynote talk on  “Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology?”, discussing issues around the consensus debate on climate change.  Video of the talk can be found [here].  Excerpts (verbatim from slides, plus some from my written notes):

Making and selling climate consensus: “… the peer review has helped ensure a high degree of consensus amongst authors and reviewers regarding the results presented”  – Sir John Houghton, July 1990

Defending the climate consensus for political purposes: is done by by politicians and also by social scientists.  Hulme introduced the concept of ‘consensus entrepreneurs’, e.g. Nuccitelli and Cook.

Challenging the climate consensus are scientists (e.g. Bob Carter), journalists (e.g. Donna LaFramboise), advocacy groups

Possible motivations for consensus:

  • consolidating an epistemic community
  • shoring-up the authority of science
  • offering a ‘firm foundation’ for policy
  • closing-down dissenting voices

Consensus-making processes …

  • expert elicitation (e.g. Granger-Morgan)
  • group deliberation (e.g. IPCC)
  • enumeration of publications (e.g. Cook et al.)
  • voting (e.g. Beatty & Moore)

The ethics of consensus-making …

  • beware sub-optimal deliberation
  • neither reward conformity nor punish dissent
  • dissensus in science is a standard of value
  • The requirement of unanimity is pernicious

Consensus is deemed important because:

  • pre-condition for political action
  • the linear model of science-policy
  • ‘motivating the will to change’
  • ‘gateway belief’

How do publics reason? Apparently, not according to consensus-messaging …

Consensus messaging, for the past 25 years, hasn’t really been succeeding – the consensus gap continues to persist. “… increasing knowledge alone is unlikely to overcome the political divide around climate change” [Hart et al., 2015]

How does science acquire authority? Merely offering a consensus is not enough Rather than ‘trust in numbers’ (e.g. 97.1% ), what matters is trust in the process of consensus-building (e.g. IPCC; enumeration methods – Jose Duarte’s critique of Cook et al.).  Scientists’ character and integrity matter more (Climategate). “The authority of a scientific body is not undermined by questioning, but rather depends upon it” [Beatty & Moore, 2010]

The IPCC claiming authority:

… “Although … there is a minority of opinions which we have not been able to accommodate, the peer review has helped ensure a high degree of consensus amongst authors and reviewers regarding the results presented. Thus the Assessment is an authoritative statement of the views of the international scientific community at this time.” [IPCC, John Houghton, 1990]

Finding policy agreement despite the ‘consensus gap’ [Howe et al., 2015]

  • ‘believe that most scientists think global warming is happening’ (~35%)
  • ‘somewhat or strongly support the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant’ (~65%)

Consensus as hidden framing: a way of exerting power over the public discourse on climate change:

  • Political goals 2C is a political consensus … But as a substitute for conflicting goals it can close down debate about diverse goals.
  • Epistemic claims that AGW is a scientific consensus … But with 97% as a substitute for uncertain knowledge of risk, it can skew public debate

Conclusions about consensus:

  • There are different ways of making a consensus
  • The quality of a consensus matters more than its numerical strength
  • Don’t extend the reach of consensus
  • Consensus has limited public leverage and policy efficacy
  • A consensus is not forever

Mike Hulme provided several provocative quotes from Beatty & Moore (2010), a paper I am unfamiliar with.  I took a look, this is a really good paper.

Should we aim for consensus?

John Beatty & Alfred Moore

Abstract. There can be good reasons to doubt the authority of a group of scientists. But those reasons do not include lack of unanimity among them. Indeed, holding science to a unanimity or near-unanimity standard has a pernicious effect on scientific deliberation, and on the transparency that is so crucial to the authority of science in a democracy. What authorizes a conclusion is the quality of the deliberation that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minority. Scientists can speak as one in more ways than one. We recommend a different sort of consensus that is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance” –we call it “deliberative acceptance.” It capitalizes on there being a persistent minority, and thereby encourages accurate reporting of the state of agreement and disagreement among deliberators.

Published in Episteme, [link].  Excerpts:

Suppose a body of scientists has been convened to consider an issue on which a political decision hangs, and has submitted its report. Would you have more confidence in the report, and be more likely to defer to the position recommended if it were unanimously endorsed, or if there were a minority opposed? And in the latter case, would you be even more confident if the minority were sizeable, reasonable, and well-informed on the issue in question? Not that your own outlook is different in the case of science than in the case of politics, but you can surely imagine reasons for judging the two cases differently. After all, no one expects unanimity in politics; not in the light of culture, class, gender, and other differences. If a diverse voting body were to report unanimous agreement on an issue or a candidate, one might well wonder if all parties had freely spoken their minds. Science, on the other hand, is supposedly conducted by rules of reasoning that lead from the same evidence to the same conclusions, no matter who does the reckoning. In the case of science, lack of consensus might suggest that conclusions had been reached prematurely, or that the “personal or social attributes” of the protagonists had interfered with their deliberations.

Unanimity is not required to authorize the result of a scientific deliberation, i.e., to entitle deference to the outcome. Worse, the requirement of unanimity is pernicious. It has a detrimental effect on scientific deliberation, encouraging agreement where there is none in order to protect the authority of the group. It encourages misleading reports of the state of scientific agreement to the public. It undermines the epistemic equality of the deliberators. And it unfairly privileges the status quo with regard to any decisions that hinge on the outcome of the contest.

Furthermore, the persistence of a minority is not only “okay,” but is rather a benefit: minorities are not confidence busters, but confidence boosters, for the reasons suggested by Elster in the case of politics, reasons that apply in the case of science as well. What matters is the quality of the deliberation, which is enhanced by the existence of a non-dismissible minority. The kind of agreement that authorizes the result of a scientific deliberation is partly substantive and partly procedural. It is a version of what Margaret Gilbert calls “joint acceptance” (1987, 1996); we call it “deliberative acceptance.”

Our point will be that authority is not undermined by questioning, but rather strengthened by it. Authority also requires transparency, which is easier to provide when hard questions are seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

Deemphasizing consensus on substantive issues (though not entirely), and stressing consensus on deliberative quality would not only take away the temptation to hide a persistent minority position, but would instead provide a good use for it. What better way to inspire confidence in a deliberative outcome than to show that 1) the position in question had been tested against a worthy alternative; 2) the minority felt that they had been heard, that they had been treated as deliberative equals; and 3) having been heard, even the minority agreed to let the position in question stand as the group’s.

JC reflections

I found Mike Hulme’s talk to be very interesting, particularly as a complement to my own paper on the topic No consensus on consensus – Hulme takes more of a social science perspective than I did.

My main concern re the IPCC consensus seeking and the consensus entrepreneurs is that this is extremely ill-suited to a complex, highly uncertain area of science, and that it acts to bias the science.  Scientists defending the consensus end up conducting acts that undermine the consensus through loss of trust in the scientists.

Beatty & Moore make really important points about the importance of minority opinions in terms of strengthening the consensus and building trust in the process.

I can’t find the Howe et al (2015) paper referenced by Hulme (ordvic spotted it here), but I think some very important points are emerging about the failure of consensus messaging to motivate the will to act and as a gateway for belief.  This, taken in combination with the failure of the linear model of policy making (speaking consensus to power), suggest that a re-frame is really needed for climate policy.  The public and policy makers seem to support many of the policies that are being pushed under the climate banner (in spite of the consensus gap), simply because these policies make sense for other reasons (i.e. no regret policies).

As I’ve written many times before, it is time for the IPCC to abandon their consensus seeking process, and stick to a more straightforward assessment of what we know, what we don’t know, progress since the last assessment, and provide a much broader range of possible future climate scenarios (including natural variability).

And its time to put the ‘consensus entrepreneurs’ back in a box.  Imagine a world without consensus entrepreneurs; there would be no need for ‘deniers’!

 

435 responses to “Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology?

  1. Yesterday, James Taranto wrote about a “preference cascade” excerpting a Glenn Reynolds piece from 2002 …

    This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. . . . Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don’t realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it—but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.

    This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers—or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they’re also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/preference-cascade-1435168641?mod=rss_Best_of_the_Web_Today
    http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2002/03/patriotism-and-preferences.html

    • Interesting article. I wonder if the climate consensus could collapse quickly? Perhaps if a Republican is elected President in the U.S., the research funding would go to study natural climate variability. The consensus ‘rats’ might desert the sinking funding ship and start talking about natural climate variability. Interesting to ponder

      • Mother nature does continue to provide real data that does not agree with Consensus alarmist climate model output.Yes, the alarmism will likely collapse quickly. I don’t know how soon this will happen.

      • I think that might be happening. There have several articles about weather news on the Canadian Weather Network recently that say things like “climate variability happens naturally and because of the activities of humans” and other such qualifying statements to the Global Warming creed. This seem to me to be a shift from the constant 100% climate change alarmism I recall from them in the past. I see the same thing in the press stories from the UK about cooling due to solar minimum with statements like “this cooling will only be partially offset by anthropogenic global warming”. I think the collapse has begun.

      • The AGW consensus will collapse slowly because bruised egos will take time to heal. While I am no fan of short term data I do note that the AGWers are and they will be hoist by their petard of short term pause/hiatus in the more reliable modern data that keeps coming in.

      • While the so-called “hiatus” gave the skeptics a breather in global warming, the next warming phase may make them feel like the evidence is submerging them again. The next El Nino will cause some sputtering. Perhaps in time they will just go under by conceding yes it is actually warming pretty fast all the time, and this is something to do with the record-high and growing CO2 levels.

      • It seems to me that if all we do is study climate variability isn’t it mostly just paleoclimatology? Kind of like just projecting the past into the future on various time scales without human influences.

      • “While I am no fan of short term data I do note that the AGWers are and they will be hoist by their petard of short term pause/hiatus in the more reliable modern data that keeps coming in.”

        hmmm:

        “Whether or not the warming trend since some carefully chosen date is positive, negative, and “significantly” so or not, is mostly an exercise in cherry-picking and the abuse of significance testing (The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant), not to mention the sort of “gotcha” that belongs in the political domain if anywhere. What matters is how well the obs agree with model projections, and there is no particular threshold of zero trend that has any special importance in that respect. Furthermore, whether or not there is an interval with zero or negative trend, no-one with any clue would dispute that we will continue to see warming in the long term, with some natural variability overlaid on top of that.”

        http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/that-hiatus-thing.html

      • ==> “The consensus ‘rats’ might desert the sinking funding ship and start talking about natural climate variability.”

        Nice way to build bridges there, Judith. Imply that the strong majority of climate scientists only hold the views they have because they’re chasing funding.

        “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”

        — Richard Tol

      • There are 60 million refugees in the world today. The combined population of Vanuatu and Tuvalu is 350,000. The two islands are not sinking–land area is increasing. But if worse came to worst, the island nations would be an asterisk in the refugee count.

      • “Perhaps if a Republican is elected President in the U.S., the research funding would go to study natural climate variability.”

        With the exception of Ted Cruz, there is no a Republican candidate for president who could be counted on to actually attempt to reverse the course of Leviathan, including on globalclimatewarmingchange. The GOP is headed by a bunch of ‘me too’, progressive-lite politicians who just want to implement their own scaled down version of central planning. And the CAGW crony scientist gravy train is the perfect vehicle for them too.

      • @jim d

        ‘Perhaps in time they will just go under by conceding yes it is actually warming pretty fast all the time’

        P’raps in time there’ll be data that shows it happening.

        But right now – without folks doing ever more bizarre statistical gymnastics and inventing ever more conveniently inaccessible (to both observation and thermodynamics) places where the missing heat ‘must’ be hiding – there ain’t.

        And by the way – posthoc ‘massaging’ of historical data to show the effect you dream of is such a transparent ruse that only other academics – or those with a deeply invested ‘blind eye’ – would be dumb enough to fall for it.

      • Joshua | June 25, 2015 at 9:53 pm |
        ==> “The consensus ‘rats’ might desert the sinking funding ship and start talking about natural climate variability.”

        Nice way to build bridges there, Judith. Imply that the strong majority of climate scientists only hold the views they have because they’re chasing funding.

        “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”

        — Richard Tol

        The measured effect is 0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM or about 1.06 W/m2 since 1900 to date assuming the 1900 CO2 level was 295 PPM and the current level is 400 PPM.

        It is hard to make the case that 1.06 W/m2 since 1900 is dominant. It isn’t hard to make the case that it is significant.

        And of course “almost” only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

      • @Jim D

        I have to agree with Latimer, Jim. There is enough evidence to falsify high sensitivity to manmade GHG, and not enough to confirm it. The basis for alarm was that GAT was increasing, and now it’s not. If there was some kind of super duper El Niño that lasted for 5 years or something and caused GAT since 2001 to return to an increase of 0.3 C per decade I would be listening again. That would mean GAT something like 1.5 above the mean of the last 15 years for the next 5 – is that right? (…wild guessing but you see my point). Do you think that’s likely?

        My views on this are wholly centred around the evidence, and their quality. If the evidence changes so will my views.

      • Nah … I think they’re far more likely to jump onto the “sustainability” bandwagon … it’s even more nebulous than “climate change” and covers a veritable multitude of “sins” – it could quite easily embrace “climate change”. Not to mention that the UNEP has been building it up and pushing it forward now for a few years (or more) … particularly since Rio+20!

      • David Springer

        GaryM

        I beg to differ.

        https://rickperry.org/about

      • For us laymen, we feel hopelessly caught in a science crossfire. We listen to you, but we also listen to folks like Dr. Muller (who is no fan of Dr. Mann) and Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Molina and Dr. Ramanathan (who look for “common ground”).

        Dr. Muller (and Others) say they have looked at the stuff you talk about — and have a pretty slick interactive graph:

        http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

        Can you (using resources at Georgia Tech and Others) come up with a “slick” interactive, illustrating your point of view for us “Average Joe’s”?

        Thanks.

      • Stephen Segrest,

        It’s a slick graphic but it I find it doesn’t answer the questiosn I ask so for me I find it totally unpersuasive. It is simply a representation of the same old stuff the IPCC and climate alarmists have been presenting for decades. Why do they avoid addressing the questions people like me ask?

        Q1. What is the explanation for the previous warmings and coolings? if the models can’t reproduce them, why should we believe the adjusted and fitted data and models that have produced the slick graphic you refer to?

        Q2 What are the PDFs for time to next abrupt climate change, direction of change, duration of change, rate of change, total change?

        Q3. Does any of it matter? What are the likely impacts of a change in GHG concentration? Is it net beneficial or detrimental? What is the damage function? What’s the persuasive evidence? I find it lacking.

      • I’ve been looking at the “slick” graphic Stephen linked to. It certainly has impressed some people. I don’t think many of them know or understand what it is. I have an idea (but if I’m wrong I would appreciate it if someone corrected me there).

        It seems to be an “output” of a climate model. It’s is (or is like) a causal modeling approach where you put in a bunch of factors and the models find coefficients for how for the driver values to explain the dependent variable (temperature). Coefficients are selected to minimize the mismatch between the driver variables and the dependent variable, For each value on the dependent variable you can multiply the each coefficient value time the drive value reading at that point to see it’s contribution to driver value. Taking any data set where there is some correlation (and basically all data has some correlation), you can subject it to a similar analysis. Depending on your choices of driver variables the coefficients associated with the other driver variables can change considerably. But it will find some variables high significant and others not. Statisticians know the findings of such models are not meaningful unless are significant driver variables are included.

        Since correlation is not causation, the model and coefficients are just the first step. The question is does the model hold up when applied to data which was not included when it was built? Or can you withhold some of the data and get the model to work so it explains what you withheld?

        In the end the presentation Stephen linked to is definitely slick and seemingly impressive. I’ve seen it used by people to say “case closed” – but to me it looks like such an approach could “bolster” all kinds of dubious relations as well. I don’t know if fighting crap with crap is the best strategy – but it might be.

        If I have not misunderstood what is going on here, anyone bamboozled by this presentation ought to reassess what other type seemingly solid stuff is driving their perceptions.

      • You voted for Obama, you should atone for that while discussing who the “rats” actually are and were.

      • Muller can make his factoids wiggle, at least on Bloomberg. That’s a real advance.

        And it’s good that some are noting that the latest warming creep began in the 19th century. Unlike SLR, which began in the 18th century, more a trickle than a creep. Good to get all that straight.

        Love the Muller process-of-elimination, by the way. If I have something in my pocket and it’s not an apple or an orange or a banana…why, it must be a pineapple!

      • Stephen Segrest | June 26, 2015 at 7:51 am |
        For us laymen, we feel hopelessly caught in a science crossfire. We listen to you, but we also listen to folks like Dr. Muller (who is no fan of Dr. Mann) and Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Molina and Dr. Ramanathan (who look for “common ground”).

        Dr. Muller (and Others) say they have looked at the stuff you talk about — and have a pretty slick interactive graph:

        http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

        Can you (using resources at Georgia Tech and Others) come up with a “slick” interactive, illustrating your point of view for us “Average Joe’s”?

        Thanks.

        Muller et. al. make a fine story, however.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150319

        Assuming 1900 was 295 PPM, and the current CO2 level is 400 PPM, the GHG warming indicated by 0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM (uncertainty 0.06 W/m2/decade) is 1.06 W/m2 (0.28°C) since 1900.

        Guessing and models, despite the assertions of many climate scientists, do not triumph actual measurement. Scientific opinion does not mold reality.

        Muller’s GHG forcing curve is off by over 3 times. Since his GHG forcings are over 3 times too high (1°C) and the net of natural factors is about 0.1°C – the error on the net of Muller’s natural forcings is 4+ times or over 400%. Which means scientists don’t understand natural climate forcings at all. 400+% error is so bad that it could be argued that scientists don’t know any more about natural climate forcings than non-scientists (or perhaps even less).

      • Judith.
        “Perhaps if a Republican is elected President in the U.S., the research funding would go to study natural climate variability. ”

        The more likely outcome is a cut of all funding into the study of climate.

        1. They don’t believe the climate can be understood.
        2. They don’t believe any climate data records are trustworthy.
        3. They dont believe in any results funded by the government.
        4. They dont believe that observational sciences are ‘real’ science.
        5. They believe that the vast majority of working scientists have a political
        6. They dont believe you can predict the future.

        Now of course you can find republicans and some skeptics who will disagree with 1-6, but nobody on the right has ever called the anti science types to account. What are you going to suggest as a program to understand natural variability?

        A) a closer study of paleo? you will still face the anti paleo critics
        until you successfully defend that whole discipline.

        B) better GCM studies? what skeptic will ever believe a model?
        you cant promote better modelling of natural variability until
        you defended the whole modelling approach to understanding.

        C) better studies of the historical record? How? when skeptical arguments are A) that record cant be trusted. B) if we trust it it cant tell us anything because it’s incomplete.

        The damage inflicted from the anti science right has been on the science itself.. climate science qua science, not merely the results of the science or the focus of the science.
        you want to refocus on natural variability?That’s fine, but before you can start that refocus you have to address and dispatch the most virulent forms of skepticism. the anti science forms.

      • Bush 41 was the golden era for climate science research

      • blueice2hotsea

        Steven Mosher – The damage inflicted from the anti science right has been on the science itself…

        Whoa. Slow down. Your hands are not exactly clean. You have long attacked crap science ((Himalayagate, etc).

        And who defended it? The anti-science left. No surprise that the anti-science right has mounted an offensive in your tracks.

        It’s reasonable to demand that a Republican president rise above the anti-science idiocy element both parties and devote some effort into clearing the road-blocks in climate science.

      • What part of climate science qua science was lost in translation

        “Whoa. Slow down. Your hands are not exactly clean. You have long attacked crap science ((Himalayagate, etc).”

        1. This is an attack on a SUMMARY DOCUMENT.
        2. This is not an attack on the very NOTION that climate science
        is a science.

        Understand. It is skeptics who.

        1. Attack ANY AND ALL use of models
        2. Attack ANY AND ALL corrections to historical data
        3. Attack ANY AND ALL attempts to construct climate data sets
        4. Attack ANY AND ALL science funded by governments.

        in short skeptics ( not all of course ) have attacked more than the mere results of climate science. they have attacked the very notion itself.

        Y’all need to own that mess and clean it up

      • blueice2hotsea

        SM – Y’all need to own that mess and clean it up

        Really?
        1. I support the use of models because Earth is not a lab.
        2. I support corrections to historical data.
        3. I support attempts to construct climate data sets.
        4. I support funding of science by governments.
        Do you understand?

        It is anti-science to ignore/promote crap science that supports your beliefs.
        It is anti-science to ignore/attack good science that undermines your beliefs.
        Anti-science is not a left/right issue.

      • If Mosher considered for a single moment getting down from that high, high horse of his he might realise just what a ridiculous straw-man version of sceptics he has constructed.

      • blueice2hotsea | June 26, 2015 at 5:19 pm |
        SM – Y’all need to own that mess and clean it up

        Really?
        1. I support the use of models because Earth is not a lab.

        Empirical testing results supersede model results, unequivocally.

      • catweazle666

        “I wonder if the climate consensus could collapse quickly?”

        It is collapsing right at this moment, in fact.

        This – if correct – will scupper it once and for all, notwithstanding any CYA flannel about only postponing the inevitable CO2-induced catastrophe.

        It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

        The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

        Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

        The alarmists are going to have a very steep uphill struggle keeping the AGW scare going if we end up with frost fairs on the Thames!

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835

        Taken in conjunction with the general Global lack of concern about the whole AGW bandwagon exposed by the 2015 United Nations My World survey currently covering 7,632,453 respondents showing climate change flat last of sixteen categories, the consensus – and the CO2 scare itself come to that – is by any real standards practically irrelevant anyway.

        http://data.myworld2015.org/

      • blueice2hotsea

        JA
        Mosher may be worried about a halt to progress in science. That could be very, very bad. For everyone and everything.

        But I agree with you wrt the strawman. Even the skeptics who seem to be “rejecting” science, I think, are mostly rejecting the bad smell coming from political agents who communicate BS as to what scientists really think (re 97% consensus).

      • blueice2hotsea

        PA – Empirical testing results supersede model results, unequivocally.

        Is supercede the right word?

        Tests without hypotheses is not science. Models based on laws and theories provide the required hypotheses.

        Yes, hypotheses without tests is also not science.

      • Bush 41 was the golden era for climate science research. …

        This logic is so bad. They did not get what they wanted. They want something. They did not get it from science, so next up will be getting what they want by not having any science.

      • blueice2hotsea | June 26, 2015 at 7:01 pm |

        Tests without hypotheses is not science. Models based on laws and theories provide the required hypotheses.

        Yes, hypotheses without tests is also not science.

        “without tests” is way to broad. That could mean you subject it to a statistical test or a tea leaves test. A scientific hypothesis has to be tested against nature. Mosher’s temperature constructions can’t be tested against nature because that would entail going back in time to measure the temperature. This makes his reconstruction, a form of hypothesis, untestable. The hypothesis that a water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one of oxygen is testable – in multiple ways. This means the proof of the water hypothesis is strong. But Mosher’s contention that the temperature at time and place X in the past, is not testable, and therefore weak.

      • “But Mosher’s contention that the temperature at time and place X in the past, is not testable, and therefore weak.”
        It will be very hard to prove out past temps, we can test out current temps, but the value reported is so abstracted from the temps at anyone location I don’t think even that is possible.
        Other that having to take current temps and running the complete set of processes on it, but how do you confirm that when it can have temps from 1,000km away in them, it could be almost anything and there no way to directly compare it, that’s one of my big complaints about how they do their testing, when they say my temp should be x right out my window there’s no way to prove it matches, plus I know the temp 40 miles away is 4-5 degrees warmer, it always is, at least if the sun is out.
        They make too many assumptions that are impossible to verify, and that’s for temps taken now, 100-150 years ago there are far far fewer station readings to work with.

        But that doesn’t mean you can’t get good information out of the data we have.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Climate scientist, “I can’t believe those denying flat earther Republicans are cutting my funding just because I told everyone that would listen they were denying flat earthers”

        Yes another indication that climate scientists as a group lack common sense and good judgement.

      • micro – that’s why I question the accuracy of BEST. I also doubt the precision it as tight as claimed.

    • David L. Hagen

      Fall of East Europe 1989
      Such rapid collapse is exemplified by the fall of Eastern Europe in 1989. e.g. see: The Fall of Communism – Twenty Years Later
      Few realize that it was led by prayer movements in the Churches.

      • Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but if desperation is an indicator the consensus edges may start falling to the wayside out of embarrassment sooner rather than later. The media messaging has moved from climate models of doom to extreme messaging of dire health consequences. This evening WP published a piece that the U.S. will need to take in 25% of the refugees displaced from small island nations going under water in the coming decades; this based on the U.S. contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. You can’t make this stuff up. Politics and media have pushed the persuasive arguments to the edge of reason in the effort to acquire public consensus, that’s the only way to unlock the purse. The U.S, public is pretty much tone deaf now though I believe.

        I think all it would take for scientists who have differing ideas to come out from behind the blinds is for a Republican to be elected president, If there was an indication of more diverse funding.

      • Ironically the best single source for the really alarmist stuff is WUWT. The mainstream media has hardly any of it, but that is one-stop shopping. They are very diligent about finding it all, but I think it is a distortion of the media and gives their denizens the wrong impression of the media that the general public sees.

      • jungletrunks,
        “U.S. will need to take in 25% of the refugees displaced from small island nations going under water in the coming decades; this based on the U.S. contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. You can’t make this stuff up.”

        Of course we would. Remember how well we treated all those native americans and slaves. If there is one thing americans are proud of is our deep sense of responsibility when a race of people have experienced injustice as a result of our actions.

      • JimD,

        ”Ironically the best single source for the really alarmist stuff is WUWT.

        You make a correct and astute observation. As is often the case though, I disagree with your conclusion.

        First of all, the nutty stuff does appear in the MSM. Maybe I am more sensitized to it than you are, but I shudder when I see it aimed at the less informed and more gullible voters in our society.

        Secondly it is not ironic, and not an accident. The most extreme stuff is easy to ridicule, and ridicule works!

        http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwp.edu%2FdocLib%2F20060209_RidiculeasaWeapon2.2.1.pdf&ei=4AyNVcfaI8WKsgG2t4HIBQ&usg=AFQjCNH-mDHYOtx2NBDfc95xeoDzs4q28g&bvm=bv.96782255,d.bGg

        As long as the warm side produces so much material that is so easy to ridicule, Tony Watts will be a busy man!

        Serious climate scientists have little chance of persuasion with so many fools on board paddling in crazy directions.

      • jacksmith4tx
        You’re being sarcastic about America’s responsibility but tangential to my point of “near-term not going to happen” tact of scare mongering propaganda messaging. The U.S. would open our arms to a massive global displacement event of any kind whenever, or if it were to occur.

        When one peels back through centuries you see a reality not unique to any one country; that of warring expansion and contraction of cultures globally, and a lot of ugly stuff in between. Even native American’s aren’t native, they just got here first. They’re a mish mash of mostly nomadic warring tribes that even expressed in some instances cannibalism. No matter how far down in time and cultural scale one drills you find the same expressions of humans as we’ve evolved sociologically and technologically. It’s simply humans evolving from a predisposed primordial nature to a civilized one; even chimps express the same propensity for land grab and war. The left enjoys self flagellation and blame, I suppose that too is just another propaganda technique of advancing politics using guilt as a mechanism.

      • jungletrunks,
        Sorry about being so sarcastic, I agree completely. The american indians were hardly one big happy multi-cultural society and the central and south american natives were ever bit as violent as europeans, asians, africans etc. I think America is at it’s heart a capitalist nation with a veneer of democracy so any notion of responsibility or guilt for past injustices must be viewed first through a economic lens. After the economic issues are resolved then we act according to our morals and ethics. I suspect climate change will follow this pattern.

      • David L. Hagen

        Immigrants to replace aborted, not climate
        The USA needs immigrants to replace more than 117 million missing due to abortion since Roe vs Wade, so as to rebuild social security on a fiscally sound basis. There are an insignificant number of climate refugees.

    • A collapse could be precipitated by a discovery of a fundamental e. rror in the climate modelling. For example, that increased forcing of the climate cools the Arctic region, which is what is should do as it increases positive NAO/AO states. Warming of the Arctic occurs with increased negative NAO/AO, at seasonal scales, and at multidecadal AMO scales. Yet I haven’t found a single sceptic on the blogs that can take that on board, as all seem to be conditioned by the assumption that “global warming” should manifest itself most strongly in the Arctic, and the concept is met with universal cognitive dissonance. Which is such a missed opportunity, as followed to its conclusion, it shows that natural variability is massively overwhelming the effects of GHG increases, which should have in theory inhibited the accelerated warming of the AMO and Arctic since 1995. Though I have no problem getting the principles across to someone who knows absolutely nothing about how the climate behaves and functions.

    • From the Wall Street Journal …

      Public’s Shift on Same-Sex Marriage Was Swift, Broad

      As recently as 1990, about seven in eight Americans said sexual relations between adults of the same gender were wrong

      A remarkably swift and broad shift in public attitudes toward gays and lesbians, unlike any other in recent history, preceded the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

      As recently as 1990, about seven in eight Americans said sexual relations between adults of the same gender were wrong. In 2004, less than a third supported same-sex marriage, and only one state, Massachusetts, allowed it. Voters in more than two dozen states approved constitutional bans during the first decade of the 2000s. In 2008, the presidential nominees of both major parties publicly opposed gay marriage.

      Then the scales tipped. In Maine, 53% voted to reject same-sex marriage in 2009; just three years later, 53% of Mainers voted to legalize it.

      This month, a strong national majority was ready to support the high court’s 5-4 ruling on Friday.

      By comparison, it took 30 years after the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws for a majority of Americans to approve of marriage between blacks and whites. Decades of national debate over abortion rights have failed to narrow deep divisions.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/publics-shift-on-same-sex-marriage-was-swift-broad-1435359461

      The article includes some analysis.

    • Pooh, Dixie

      catweazle666 | June 26, 2015 at 6:17 pm: “The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
      “Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.”

      FYI:

      Gibeau, Kevin. “Monthly Solar Flux and Sunspot Averages + Trend Charts.” Scientific. SolarHam, July 9, 2015.
      http://www.solarham.net/averages.htm
      ———. “Solar Cycle 24 | Space Weather and Amateur Radio Website.” Scientific. SolarHam, July 9, 2015.
      http://www.solarham.net/

  2. I doubt that climate change culture, with the IPCC its orthodox core, would be capable of dismantling its ‘consensus seeking process’, essentially a consensus enforcement. It is part of the ‘job’ of culture to maintain a consensus amid unresolvable uncertainty, ‘in the face of the unknown’. Are the participants in control of this consensus, or is it merely a symptom of the culture driving them? I don’t recall her exact words or where the quote is, but I think Donna LaFramboise may well be right; the only option is a sweeping away of that culture – new folks drafted in. I do not think the old guard is likely ever to adapt.

    Mike Hulme once touted and admired climate change as the overriding culture via which we would interpret all else. This has come pretty close to actually happening. Given that strong culture *creates* consensus, and will do so independently of any science or reality beneath, I think it is rather hypocritical of him to now join the ranks of those criticizing the stifling nature and power of the CC consensus. OTOH, I guess at least he is one who is more than capable of adapting.

    • Curious George

      Climate change culture? Suddenly we don’t need multi-culti?

    • catweazle666

      “Mike Hulme once touted and admired climate change as the overriding culture via which we would interpret all else.”

      Indeed he did.

      Here’s a sample:

      The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.

      …climate change has become an idea that now travels well beyond its origins in the natural sciences…climate change takes on new meanings and serves new purposes…climate change has become “the mother of all issues”, the key narrative within which all environmental politics – from global to local – is now framed…Rather than asking “how do we solve climate change?” we need to turn the question around and ask: “how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations…?”

      http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

      Awesome stuff!

    • @andywest
      You correctly deconstructed the Mike Hulme modus operandi

      Mike displays all the characteristics of a very dangerous animal; a high priest who understands not only the power of religions, but how they work and how they may best be deployed to move nations. Yet simultaneously he believes utterly in his chosen religion too. His skillful and constant reframing plus nuanced balancing against increasing skepticism, serves only that religion.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/#comment-1558534

      Notice what he does. As long as the various tenets of the CAGW dogma are still effective/useful in conning the unwashed, then he doesn’t come clean. But when a certain tenet is coming unglued, then he concedes it, playing a voice of reason apparently.
      Notice that Mike conceded at one point that that it wasn’t all a Big Oil conspiracy to be against the CAGW pseudo-science. But only after it was becoming obvious how untenable this dogma was!!.
      And he conceded that the Cook-Lewandowsky drivel was drivel.
      And he did similar as I recall after Climategate.
      By making these little concessions, he seeks to maintain his own credibility and influence to continue conning the people.
      But the real question is why he didn’t come clean earlier!!

      Storytelling.. Post Normal Mike(Aesop) Hulme
      “we will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects”
      “These myths transcend the scientific categories of true and false”
      https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-712256

      Climate Change and the Death of Science
      http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

  3. The push to make the clinate consensus alarming comes for the polticial side. They want reasons to raise taxes, make rules and reg, grow government, laws and law enforcement.

  4. I don’t mind if scientists speak with one voice as long as they don’t speak with forked tongue.

  5. “Hulme introduced the concept of ‘consensus entrepreneurs’, e.g. Nuccitelli and Cook.” With the intent of helping, perhaps they are making things worse as I hear Hulme. Consider the consensus is an entity and people can shape it, but they find it difficult to own. It is easier to wield it though. Like wielding, The American Way, as a rhetorical device.

    Re-writing a sentence of the abstract we get:
    What authorizes the United States is the quality of the acts that produced it, which is enhanced by the presence of a non-dismissible minorities.
    We’ve had two parties for over 200 years. I don’t think many would argue for a one party system. There’s been opposition to just about every great and bad thing we’ve done. Yin hold the Yang is not natural. Yin only is unsustainable.

  6. Panacea, pathology, or simply pathetic?

  7. David L. Hagen

    “Once burnt, twice shy.”
    Excellent presentations on critically important issues.
    In 1991 I wrote a 330 page report on solar thermal technology to redress the IPCC’s 1990 warning of 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century greenhouse warming. Now I find that temperatures have since risen only 49% of that or 1.37K/century. Yet the pathological IPCC claims 95% confidence that humans caused > 50% of the warming since 1950! The gall of it! As Richard Feynman eloquently summarized: They are wrong!
    Abusing Authority
    The IPCC lost its authority with me by:
    1) models diverging rapidly from reality;
    2) refusing to allow minority positions to be expressed;
    3) shutting down debate;
    4) claiming increasing confidence in the face of increasing divergence of predictions from data;
    5) advocating “mitigation” which is orders of magnitude more expensive than “adaptation”;
    6) using fear-mongering to push politically driven central control solutions;
    7) harming the 3 billion in poverty by preventing access to the cheapest coal fired electricity and seeking to reduce the strong agricultural benefits from more CO2; and
    8) ignoring the international standards for expressing uncertainty.
    Real science
    The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17
    The authority of science builds on the accuracy of its predictions against subsequent data. It is essential for science to constantly challenge models to improve them and to find out what stands and what does not. Models are only as strong as the degree to which they stand up to being examined against all the data available. More data needs to be found to differentiate between models.
    Credible Challenges
    “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17.
    The credibility of the IPCC can only be rebuilt by seriously addressing all the technical challenges to the climate and policy models and by implementing all the reform recommendations. Thus the essential value of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). See Climate Change Reconsidered. Similarly, ex NASA/Apollo era scientists, and engineers formed The Right Climate Stuff.
    Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
    Solutions
    For some measures to restore credibility to “climate science” and the IPCC, see:
    InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure
    What is Wrong with the Ipcc? Proposals for a Radical Reform, Ross McKitrick, GWPF
    GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement BIMP JCGM 100 2008.
    Finally, climate science and the IPCC need meet the high level challenges in:
    How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong, Christopher Monckton.

  8. A serf’s Thought fer Terday:

    ‘Beware ‘the consensus’
    as persuasive defensus
    ad captandum vulgus.
    Ex scientia vera and
    fiat lux!’

  9. “Possible motivations for consensus:

    consolidating an epistemic community
    shoring-up the authority of science
    offering a ‘firm foundation’ for policy
    closing-down dissenting voices”

    Consolidating an epistemic community must be latin for “let’s keep the goodies flowing for as long as we can.”

    (aka pokerguy)

  10. David L. Hagen

    Noble Cause Corruption
    A major problem with climate scientists and the IPCC abusing the scientific method is their being caught in the vicious circle of models predicting warming therefore tuning them with expected warming, and the grant cycle that biases funding to addressing / creating climate alarms. They are further
    misguided by Noble Cause Corruption by using any means to justify the end. e.g. Climategate.

    • David is close here. But surely the real problem is that they have the cart before the horse.

      Rather than using real observations to help them make better models, they choose to use models to help them make ‘better’ observations. Hence the rewriting of history to show past ‘warming’ that was never detected at the time.

      In other fields this is called ‘cooking the books’ and people go to jail for it.

      And it illustrates the wider point too. The case for frightening global warming is so weak – or its advocates and supporters so spineless – or both, that they feel the need to do such transparently obvious shenanigans. It is hard not to conclude that the funding system (for ‘climate scientists’ are wage slaves too) encourages them in this endeavour.

      Anyone whose ever come in contact with 3-year old kids will recognise that they make things up because it suits them and aren’t worldly-wise enough to realise that the grownups will find them out sooner rather than later. Maybe the consensus ‘scientists’ haven’t spent enough time outside the academic bubble to realise that the same applies to them.

  11. There is also the bias to report alarming results because the non-profits can fund raise more with a scare story. People that make fun of bible thumpers preaching that judgment day is coming are susceptible to the same pitch from enviro thumpers.

  12. I thinkso, pokerguy. See me latest voyage re
    ‘the baggage in the hold’ which nevertheless
    was jettisoned in the clash with observations.
    https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/

  13. I also think Beatty and Moore make good points. Unanimity would be suspicious in science. There will always be a minority view. There should be a “minority report” or “dissenting opinion” to parallel the IPCC one. Some might even say the NIPCC is, but I don’t think that is well constructed because it is a series of individual opinion pieces rather than having a coherent idea of why the IPCC is wrong on the basic warming mechanism. Many dissenting scientists won’t say that the IPCC is plain wrong, and it is difficult because their uncertainty range covers 97% of climate scientists. This leaves 3% dissenting of which probably 2/3 represent a loony fringe (planet cycles, UHI, solar delay, skydragons, negative feedback, warming is good, plant food, etc.) and 1% can make a scientific case that can be read and judged for what it is. The lack of a coherent case against IPCC’s AGW is a major problem for this minority. As it is we just have the majority view with any coherence. Perhaps this is a signal that there is no coherent minority case to be made against AGW because all the skeptics don’t like each others ideas either.

    • Jim D, For one thing the 97% deal is a farce. It has been shown to be more like 87%. There are also many Solar physicists how write their papers with a caveat that they believe in GHG warming as well. Most of the skeptics could be considered to be part of the consensus they just question some of the assertions since the scientific method is not always used or in the case of the IPCC never used. You’re probably right about the minority speaking with one voice and marginalizing the kooks.

      • The IPCC has a spectrum and probably 97% of the scientists are within that spectrum of the sensitivity. That is not to say they have to believe the whole IPCC range (1.5-4.5 C per doubling), just some of it. The ones outside are those that think even 1.5 C is too high for them, and this might be a very small number, especially of those rated as climate scientists. Whoever they are, they need to get together and see if they agree with each other on anything. A one-person opinion isn’t worth much, but if you can get several that is very different.

    • Some might even say the NIPCC is, but I don’t think that is well constructed because it is a series of individual opinion pieces rather than having a coherent idea of why the IPCC is wrong on the basic warming mechanism.

      extreme alarmist consensus climate opinion is really sick.
      You are suggesting that the NIPCC should have sick consensus to combat the Alarmist sick consensus. The Skeptic side does have consensus that the Alarmist side is sick, but the skeptic side does not have consensus on all the reasons the alarmist side is sick. We have a lot of valid different reasons that the alarmist consensus lack of reasoning is sick.

      • The skeptics just have a lot of individuals who don’t even believe each other, and you think that is a better situation for them?

      • Jim D:
        “The skeptics just have a lot of individuals who don’t even believe each other, and you think that is a better situation for them?”
        You are describing the Libertarian Party. It’s not better for them if they want political power. It might be better for them. Free to think up any crazy theory. One might even turn out to be true that is completely non-mainstream. Might be better for us too.

      • That may work for politicians, but it doesn’t work for science. First you need to get two skeptics of AGW in the same room agreeing what they think the alternative is. That hasn’t happened and won’t happen. And I don’t mean just chiseling away at the temperature record, which is a full-time preoccupation for some of them.

    • “…a change in our climate causes an impact which changes our climate further — a knock-on effect which feeds back into our climate. There can be both negative and positive feedbacks…”
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks
      I admit negative feedback theories are a bit Fringe. For instance, a warming world would have more water vapor and warm us some more causing more water vapor and so on, unless there were negative feedbacks to bring us to ECS and not beyond. This is Fringe and we don’t see (m)any negative feedback studies, that quantify them somewhat, and finds one once in awhile. We do get natural variability studies though. Do think this is wishful thinking that they’d be strong enough to take out half the warming? CO2 is powerful. It can move temperatures a lot. But ECS implies that something pretty strong can stop the rise. At that point where ECS is reached, which is stronger? Negative feedbacks or CO2?

      • “For instance, a warming world would have more water vapor and warm us some more causing more water vapor and so on,”

        At what altitude and at what latitudes? because that will make all the difference as to whether the effects are negative or positive. E.g less low altitude and more high altitude water vapour is doubly negative.

      • It doesn’t seem you are understanding that a positive feedback is not always a runaway process. It is self-limiting as long as the feedback factor is less than one. It is considered to be about 2/3 which leads to a asymptotic warming three times the no-feedback value (1/(1-f)).

      • Jim D:
        I am following your math, and thanks for the review. I’ll use 1/3 instead of 2/3s. Am I now fringe? I think ECS means at some point, all negative balance all positives. So at that point, whose shed is it?

      • Ulriclyons:
        I agree at those latitudes it is probably negative because of water. High latitude oceans without ice, don’t store a lot of heat.

      • It means that if you increase CO2, you increase the temperature at which this balance occurs. Will it be 450 ppm and 2 C or 700 ppm and 4 C?

    • Every survey of climate scientists I have seen (von Storch/Bray et al 2008, Pielke et al 2009, Verheggen et al 2012) has reported that 66% of published climate scientists working in the field believe half or more of current warming is human caused (In Storch) or more specifically by human emissions of CO2 (Verheggen).

      Solid majority. Even consensus. But plenty of room for a minority report that needs to be taken seriously. Lindzen, Christy, Curry and others, respected, intelligent scientists with both pedigree and chops.

      The literature reviews are self-serving garbage with holes big enough to drive a truck through. They were not meant to show the diversity of opinion on climate change. They were designed to conceal it.

      • What would they write? That they are sure that the manmade fraction of warming is about 50% and not possibly 100%? What would they offer in evidence? How certain would they make their statement, and would their range overlap significantly with the IPCC’s making theirs not a dissenting view after all?

      • Jim D, this is how it broke out in the Verheggen survey:

        More than 100%: 17.1%
        76%-100%: 32.2%
        51%-75%: 16.6%

        That adds up to 66% who believe that half or more of recent warming is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

        Here are the rest of the responses:

        26%-50%: 5.2%
        0-25%: 6.5%
        Less than zero: 0.2%
        No warming: 0.4%
        Unknown: 9.9%
        I don’t know: 8.8%
        Other: 3.1%

      • Don Monfort

        Little yimmy dee is a denier of the credible 66% consensus. It’s got to be that 97% BS, due to the unfortunate fact that 66% don’t sell much toothpaste.

      • What’s the take of those 17.1% of scientists who believe humans have caused “more than 100%” of the warming?

      • Jungletrunks, If you go back and read JCs debate with Gavin Schmidt you’ll find his graph showing best range as between 51% and 135% with best guess being 110%. The post is Titled ‘ Most vs half vs 50%.’

      • If natural variability added up amounted to a COOLING of temperatures then CO2 would have to add up to more than100% to offset the natural cooling that should have taken place.

      • The Verheggen survey also shows that the highest quartile, if you rank them by publications, are more on the high side. 90% of those with a quantitative opinion had more than 50% due to GHG.

      • > 66% of published climate scientists working in the field believe half or more of current warming is human caused (In Storch)

      • > Every survey of climate scientists I have seen (von Storch/Bray et al 2008, Pielke et al 2009, Verheggen et al 2012) has reported that 66% of published climate scientists working in the field believe half or more of current warming is human caused (In Storch) or more specifically by human emissions of CO2 (Verheggen).

        See for yourself:

        Source: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e

      • I see the methodology here now, thanks for all the responses.

      • rogerknights

        “What’s the take of those 17.1% of scientists who believe humans have caused “more than 100%” of the warming?”

        They think that the temperature would be higher now were it not for uneven (cooling-phase) natural variability suppressing it.

  14. “Finding policy agreement despite the ‘consensus gap’”

    This was about trying a new wrapping and flavouring for the same old sludge, right? Yum. So smooth and delish, yet low in carbon and rich in white elephants…I can’t believe it’s not consensus!

    Good try, warmies.

  15. Consensus is really a sickness. it has no place in science. anyone who suffers from consensus cannot be any kind of scientist.

  16. Pingback: Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  17. Paging Dr. Lewandowsky..Come look at these comments..

  18. My main concern re the IPCC consensus seeking and the consensus entrepreneurs is that this is extremely ill-suited to a complex, highly uncertain area of science, and that it acts to bias the science.

    I think that there is a consensus around the notion that climate change poses a number of growing substantial risks as the temperature increases. And the IPCC report based on the science supports this. And also that if we don’t do anything to curb our emissions, we will increase those risks by increasing temperature.

    • Well, any scientist who has dedicated their career, if not their life, to that notion, might be abhorred at the merest suggestion that the risks might not be as bad as suggested

    • I think that there is a consensus around the notion that climate change poses a number of growing substantial risks as the temperature increases.

      Well, past warming and CO2 has imposed a proven massive benefit of somewhere north of $1 trillion/year.

      Risk from virtual harm has to be very significant to offset that.

      If you believe that there have been any real proven harms please list them and the estimated cost to date.

    • If you believe that there have been any real proven harms please list them.

      Well here is a good start to learn more about impacts in the US. You could read the IPCC report on impacts to get into the details.

      • Joseph

        Let’s take a very quick look at what you consider reliable information about the negative impacts of more CO2.

        Southeast
        “Densely populated coastal areas and coastal ecosystems in the Southeast are already experiencing relative sea level rise, hurricanes, and storm surge. Climate change is projected to exacerbate these existing threats.”

        If you had read the link you provided you would have noted that the EPA has written nothing to justify the “projection“ that climate change will exacerbate the existing threats. They reference the long term rate of sea level rise and nothing of an increase in the rate. There is nothing to demonstrate that what the EPA claims will occur will actually happen.

      • Rob, there are projections for sea level rise in the IPCC report.

      • Joseph

        When will the increase in the rate occur? Sometime…in the future.

      • See below.. If you want to really understand the science done on SLR you need to read the science. Personally, I don’t have the background to understand it all. So it involves a certain amount of trust, that I see is missing in most “skeptics.”

      • Joseph: So it involves a certain amount of trust, that I see is missing in most “skeptics.”

        yep.

      • “So it involves a certain amount of trust, that I see is missing in most “skeptics.””

        Joseph- I am not qualified to evaluate the level of trust in people and determine is appropriate.

        I am qualified to read and evaluate the conclusions written by the EPA and to determine whether there is a reasonable factual basis for reaching the stated conclusions.

        There is not.

      • What reasonable factual basis would that be, Rob? What would it look like?

      • catweazle666

        Joseph: “If you want to really understand the science done on SLR you need to read the science. Personally, I don’t have the background to understand it all. “

        Er, yes, you can say that again!

        Oh dear, I’ve heard everything now!

      • Joseph | June 26, 2015 at 11:57 am |
        Rob, there are projections for sea level rise in the IPCC report

        1. The subsidence in most locations is greater to much greater than the SLR.

        2. The IPCC sea level rise curves, while initially reasonable, are deluded fantasies in the out years. Actual sea level rise (as opposed to ocean bottom sinking and inland subsidence, among other contributors to sea level rise) can’t go exponential The surface area increases with increasing sea level and it would take an exponential increase in ocean energy to cause an exponential increase in sea level rise (real rise not virtual rise)..

        Perhaps some rational independent party needs to review the current way the satellite sea level estimate is created and fix the problem. About 1/2 of the satellite sea level change is virtual. The percentage of CGSLR is greater than the percentage (to this point) of CGAGW.

    • Joseph | June 26, 2015 at 11:19 am | Reply
      If you believe that there have been any real proven harms please list them.

      Well here is a good start to learn more about impacts in the US. You could read the IPCC report on impacts to get into the details.

      This is the same as a non-answer.

      I requested specific harms due to more CO2 and the cost associated with them.

      The IPCC impacts is a meandering document that blames deforestation caused deglaciation, deforestation caused precipitation changes, and a number of other issues on something called climate change and mostly in the future.

      I asked specifically for the harms from more GHG forcing to date, and a monetized cost to date. But the current annual cost would be preferred. If there was actual proven harm to date from GHG induced warming it obviously would have been measured or estimated and monetized by now.

      The current benefit of more CO2, exceeds $1 trillion/year. Until the annual cost of more CO2 is greater than the benefit of more CO2 it is sort of stupid to stop pumping out more CO2.

      The global warmer’s position is analogous to someone arguing they should be paid less because they don’t like all the extra coin jiggling in their pocket.

      • > The current benefit of more CO2, exceeds $1 trillion/year

        Citation needed.

      • The IPCC impacts is a meandering document that blames deforestation caused deglaciation, deforestation caused precipitation changes, and a number of other issues on something called climate change and mostly in the future.

        Do you want me to cite the thousands of papers in the literature on the subject and explain them to you. If you want the specifics that might satisfy, you will really have to do some work.

      • The IPCC impacts is a meandering document that blames deforestation caused deglaciation, deforestation caused precipitation changes, and a number of other issues on something called climate change and mostly in the future.

        Well, ok, PA you must be right.. It’s not science, they are just making it up. This 1984 all over again.

      • Willard – fish, forest, and food alone is an over $2.6 trillion industry (producer price level) and since 1900 there is a 55% increase in productivity.

        That is easily a $1 trillion dollar per year benefit. Given that an over 1/3 reduction in these supplies would radically increase costs, and this is the producer price level, that is a very conservative number.

        Joseph – if the harm was real it would have been measured and some cost estimates made. I’m just asking for the annual costs or to point to a document that itemizes them. Real harms with real costs that have been observed and measured to date, not virtual future theoretical harm.

        To know when to stop emitting CO2 – which is currently very beneficial, we need to monitor the annual cost of more emissions so we know when to start dialing back.

      • I would think with such diverse, widespread, and regional impacts it would be difficult to get “cost” estimate. I am not sure why you think that is such a simple request.

      • How much of that due to better technology and practices?

      • Joseph | June 26, 2015 at 1:29 pm |
        How much of that due to better technology and practices?

        None of it, 0%.

        CSIRO models predicted that from 1982 to 2010 the CO2 fertilization effect would increase plant growth 5%. Satellite measurements showed a global change of 11% with the greatest change in desert regions – presumably due to the reduced water requirement.

        None, zero, not any of the effect, is due to better technology or practices. We don’t farm wild vegetation.

      • Joseph | June 26, 2015 at 11:44 am |
        The IPCC impacts is a meandering document that blames deforestation caused deglaciation, deforestation caused precipitation changes, and a number of other issues on something called climate change and mostly in the future.

        Well, ok, PA you must be right.. It’s not science, they are just making it up. This 1984 all over again.

        Yes, I am glad you recognize the dishonesty and deceit by the global warmers.

        It is simple. The IPCC commingles a number of problems into climate change. Someone has to have documented the measured problems due to the CO2 increase alone – if indeed it was problematic.

        Reducing CO2 will actually increase deforestation and reduce animal habitat and exacerbate some of the global problems. The deglaciation of Kilimanjaro for example is caused by deforestation related precipitation changes, reducing CO2 won’t bring the snow cap back..Reduced plant growth due to less CO2 will result in more deforestation.

      • Joseph doesn’t want to do the work, but tells us to do so. Joseph also admits he’s not qualified to understand the work, and apparently assumes none of us are either.

        I’ll make it easier Joseph.

        How much has the rate of SLR increased over the last decade, 50 years, century?

        Which species have gone extinct due to climate changes?

        Which islands have disappeared beneath the waves?

        Tom Fuller mentions 60 million refugees worldwide. How many are climate refugees? Any clue on where those 10 million climate refugees the UN predicted are hiding? The same organzation which gave us the IPCC.

        Which cereal crops are seeing declines in production due to the “extreme” weather, drought & flooding?

        You don’t have to answer all of them Joseph. One will do. Just one measureable, real world example of harm that has occured.

      • catweazle666

        Joseph: “Do you want me to cite the thousands of papers in the literature on the subject and explain them to you.”

        But Joseph, you have just stated that you don’t understand the science, so how on Earth are you going to manage that?

        On second thoughts, forget it!

        Life’s too short.

      • > fish, forest, and food alone is an over $2.6 trillion industry

        These are benefits from fish, forest, and food, PA. You talked about benefits of more CO2. I doubt more CO2 brings more fish, more forest, and more food in such a linear fashion.

        To connect CO2 with these industries, we’d need cost-benefit analyses that would take carbon sinks into account.

      • willard (@nevaudit) | June 26, 2015 at 7:53 pm |
        > fish, forest, and food alone is an over $2.6 trillion industry

        These are benefits from fish, forest, and food, PA. You talked about benefits of more CO2. I doubt more CO2 brings more fish, more forest, and more food in such a linear fashion.

        To connect CO2 with these industries, we’d need cost-benefit analyses that would take carbon sinks into account.>/i>

        Plants (corn in this case) stop growing for a period after midday when it is windless because they run out of CO2. Claiming more CO2 doesn’t increase yield seems unwise. The CO2 is reduced significantly 152 meters above the field.

        The suggestion to document the benefits from more CO2 is a good one. By law the current funding, which may be as much as $200 million per year (it is clearly $200 million per year or less) to give more CO2 a black eye should be repurposed to for the next 5 years to document the benefits of more CO2 in excruciating detail and attempt to monetize the benefit so we can make better policy decisions.

      • I point to this:

        The current benefit of more CO2, exceeds $1 trillion/year.

        And to this:

        By law the current funding […] should be repurposed to for the next 5 years to document the benefits of more CO2.

        That is all.

      • We know it “ exceeds $1 trillion/year”, we need more science to determine how much it exceeds $1 trillion/year.

      • Steven Mosher

        PA

        There is no evidence… real evidence… or proof that increasing C02 has any effect on anything.

        Its a trace gas.

        I love playing skeptic.. Go ahead and try to prove that c02 has any effect on anything..

        I’ll be asking to see code and data and all that… so be prepared.

        No appealing to models… they are not experiments..

        Go ahead..

      • Plants (corn in this case) stop growing for a period after midday when it is windless because they run out of CO2.

        Somebody could try an experiment with solar-powered wind motors (against a control field without them but otherwise identical) for a lot less than $200,000,000. And I doubt you’d need much energy, since on a windless day sunlight is probably heating the air at the ground to at least the dry lapse rate, if not more. It wouldn’t work every day, but the averages…

      • AK – it might be cheaper to build small towers that harness the Sun to create “wind.” Something like this, but smaller, without the “greenhouse,” and distributed through the field.

        http:\\graphics8.nytimes.com\images\blogs\greeninc\solarupdraft.jpg

      • Trying again with the image:

      • @jim2…

        It might. And it might help to put a small fan at the base of the tower to get the updraft started. Since the primary purpose is to replace the surface air that’s CO2-depleted with better mixed air, anything that stirs the air without demanding external power would work.

      • A Shortstack. I read that story when it cam out in Analog, when I was 12.

      • > We know it “exceeds $1 trillion/year”, we need more science to determine how much it exceeds $1 trillion/year.”

        First, PA did not say we need more science to determine how much it exceeds $1 trillion/year.

        Second, the fact that we know it exceeds $1 trillion/year does not stand alone: it’s used as an argument .

        Third, PA’s argument is that Until the annual cost of more CO2 is greater than the benefit of more CO2 it is sort of stupid to stop pumping out more CO2.

        Fourth, this argument relies on the “we need more science” appeal to ignorance.

        Fifth, the “until” is quite underspecied in PA’s argument.

        Sixth, PA’s argument is easily countered: it would be quite stupid to continue to dump CO2 like there’s no tomorrow considering what we already know.

      • @Willard…

        I was being sarcastic/ironic. Somebody claiming your expertise in “rhetoric” should have noticed.

        I was simply drawing a sarcastic parallel with the claim that “we know CO2 warms the planet, but how much?”

      • AK – The tower should be black, at least on the Sun side. I’m a bit puzzled why the designers of the big towers don’t do that. That would get the updraft started with no need of a fan. It would also, of course, maintain it as long as the Sun was shining.

        When I was a kid, I had the World Book Encyclopedia, and a bit later, the Young Peoples Science Encyclopedia. Loved them both, but especially that latter.

        http://www.ebay.com/itm/Young-Peoples-Science-Encyclopedia-1963-Volumes-1-20-L-K-FREE-Shipping-/381016683930?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58b65d359a

      • AK – The tower should be black, at least on the Sun side.

        I suspect that if you actually calculate the energy flows involved, you’ll find it’s a nit. Or less than that. (But I must admit I’m not interested enough to do it myself.)

      • Steven Mosher | June 27, 2015 at 11:53 am |
        PA

        There is no evidence… real evidence… or proof that increasing C02 has any effect on anything.

        Its a trace gas.

        I love playing skeptic.. Go ahead and try to prove that c02 has any effect on anything..

        I’ll be asking to see code and data and all that… so be prepared.

        No appealing to models… they are not experiments..

        Go ahead..

        There isn’t any code or data. If you project the early 20th century warming forward it accounts for about 2/3rds of the observed warming. Because of that I always thought the CO2 effect was the IPCC 1°C per doubling (5.35ln(C/C0) with a smaller real world effect because of CO2 fluctuation and other effects. Thus CO2 accounts for about 1/3 of the observed 20th century warming.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature14240.html
        The actual measurement is 0.2W/m2 +/-0.06 W/m2 for 22 PPM. This is roughly Fco2 = 3.46 ln (C/C0) or 1.05 W/m2 since 1900. Since we have measured what is effectively the TCR we can move on to other things. Since everybody multiplies the TCR by 1.5 to get ECS this means the ECS is around 1°C.

        From the models the IPCC concludes the ECS is 2-4.5°C. The situation is roughly the same as if models of gravity from the IPG (Intergovernmental Panel on Gravity) yielded 20-45 m/s and the first empirical measurement was 10 m/s +/- 3 m/s . Anybody who continues to use 20-45 m/s should be defunded.

        We could assume that the measured CO2 forcing effect is linear not logarithmic – but that would make for a significantly smaller 20th century forcing effect of 0.682 W/m2 (linear) vs 0.784 W/m2 (log)

      • 20-45 m/s and the first empirical measurement was 10 m/s +/- 3 m/s . Anybody who continues to use 20-45 m/s should be defunded.

        Post got away from me before I was done proofreading. The effect of gravity is an acceleration measured in m/s2. m/s is velocity.

      • AK | June 27, 2015 at 4:44 pm |
        @Willard…

        I was being sarcastic/ironic. Somebody claiming your expertise in “rhetoric” should have noticed.

        I was simply drawing a sarcastic parallel with the claim that “we know CO2 warms the planet, but how much?”

        Both wind farms and solar farms contribute to global warming.

        Solar farms reduce albedo. Windmills have a 0.72°C direct effect and an additional effect from reduced convection. Someone should actually study how much renewable energy is aggravating global warming.

      • > Both wind farms and solar farms contribute to global warming.

        Anything that increases Grrrowth contributes to global warming. Anything that decreases Grrrowth contributes to global dying. Do you want to live and love or you want to die and hate?

        Thank you.

      • Willard | June 27, 2015 at 7:31 pm |
        > Both wind farms and solar farms contribute to global warming.

        Anything that increases Grrrowth contributes to global warming. Anything that decreases Grrrowth contributes to global dying. Do you want to live and love or you want to die and hate?

        Thank you.

        This is a legitimate question: does renewable energy cause more direct warming than a conventional power power plant.?

        A gas generator produces about 70-100 watts of heat for every 100 watts of power generated.

        A coal or nuclear plant produces about 200 watts of heat for every 100 watts generated.

        Whenever anyone asks a question that might undermine the AGW meme the AGWer hold their hands over their ears and go la la la la la to drown out the question. This gets a little old.

      • Don Monfort

        Little unapolgetic willy is singing a Kevorkian tune.

      • > Whenever anyone asks a question that might undermine the AGW meme the AGWer hold their hands over their ears and go la la la la la to drown out the question.

        Asking questions is easy. Begging questions is cheap. Just Asking Questions is a RHETORICS ™ trick.

        Just asking questions after getting caught begging a question is quite something.

      • Just asking questions after getting caught begging a question is quite something.

        Physician, heal thyself.

      • jim2: AK – it might be cheaper to build small towers that harness the Sun to create “wind.” Something like this, but smaller, without the “greenhouse,” and distributed through the field.

        http:\\graphics8.nytimes.com\images\blogs\greeninc\solarupdraft.jpg

        Wet and dry thermals do that already.

      • Next time, scratch your own itch, PA:

        Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

      • Willard | June 27, 2015 at 9:21 pm |
        Next time, scratch your own itch, PA:

        Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

        Ah, 400,000 from extreme weather.

        Well, we know from actual measurement (not global warmer guessing) that GHG is only responsible for about 1.05 W/m2 of forcing since 1900.

        That means that the 1 W/m2 of CGAGW and 2 W/m2 of natural forcing is being claimed as a CO2 effect for damage purposes.

        Further, even though the extreme weather meme gets endlessly refuted it keeps being used to create “CO2 damage” estimates. That’s dishonest.

        http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/where-are-hurricanes-u-s-goes-9-years-without-category-n259166
        http://www.weather.com/safety/tornado/news/tornado-count-hits-record-lows
        It is 9 and 2/3 years since the last cat 3 hurricane hit the US – a record by a large margin. We have the lowest 3 year tornado period since the 1950s. You need to find sources that lie better.

        More food – partly due to more CO2 – is saving far more people than the handful claimed harmed by your virtual weather problem.

      • And what of the millions of energy poor who die each year, where do they fit on the ledger?

      • > Ah, 400,000 from extreme weather.

        Look, a tempesting squirrel!

        ***

        A more recent study:

        http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs-011215.html

    • This summary document for the public that refers to IPCC and other papers. Not a scientific paper with every reference cited. So like I told, PA, if you want to know the details, you are going to have to do some work.

      • The reason there is so much talk about the social cost of carbon emissions is there is no real cost of carbon emissions.

      • > there is no real cost of carbon emissions.

        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cost+of+carbon

      • catweazle666

        Ah, more scientifically illiterate Alarmist drivel.

        Tell us Willard, do you never get tired of sleeping on a rubber sheet?

      • Really, growth of the economy?

        It would be pretty easy to demonstrate far more damage to the economy from increased energy costs due to unwise investment in renewables and absurd CO2 regulations aimed at ending coal generation.

        The crazed regulations and hostile business climate has all but driven manufacturing from the US.

        The Alice in Wonderland economic analysis of CO2 impacts is difficult to defend.

        “This effect is not included in the standard IAMs,” Moore said, “so until now it’s been very difficult to justify aggressive and potentially expensive mitigation measures because the damages just aren’t large enough.”

        That is because we are still below the average temperature of this interglacial and most of these claims are absurd on their face. Six inches of sea level to go before we hit MWP temperatures.

      • Six inches of sea level to go before we hit MWP temperatures.

        Oh man.. Where did you get that from?

      • Joseph | June 28, 2015 at 5:10 am |
        Six inches of sea level to go before we hit MWP temperatures.
        Oh man.. Where did you get that from?

        The six inch quote was from a CE thread so I really got the idea from here. Sea levels were falling from 1200 until about 1750.

      • The six inch quote was from a CE thread

        Yawn..

      • > It would be pretty easy to demonstrate far more damage to the economy from increased energy costs due to unwise investment in renewables and absurd CO2 regulations aimed at ending coal generation.

        Show me.

      • Danny Thomas

        Climateball! A thing of beauty.

        Show me where CO2 has, is, and will be the end of the world as we know it.

        No. You show me where mitigation efforts as risk management against CO2 will harm economies.

        No. You show me where you care about the poor.

        No. You show ME where YOU care about the poor.

        Score: zero to zero. Next serve. Here comes a rhetorical curve ball.

      • Willard:
        “Show me.”
        http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_10.htm
        Similar to taxpayer subsidies for professional sports team stadium subsidies, you get unwarranted optimism that rarely pans out. If all we need is government intervention to have economic Nirvana, we’d be there by now.

      • Well, the big argument in the current cost column is CO2 is reducing crop production.

        Given that greenhouses:
        1. Are warmer than the background environment.
        2. Deliberately enrich the air to 1000-1200 PPM.
        and that
        3. CO2 is proven to reduce water consumption.

        This claim that more CO2 will reduce crop production is an 1984 “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” sort of claim.

        A 0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM global warming is 1/3 what global warmers claim.

        The way the CO2 rise is veering from projections it looks like the CO2 rise will be less than 1/4 of the IPCC RPC8.5 projection.

        At less than 1/12 (1/3*1/4) of the IPCC average prediction for RPC8.5 (or 1/18th of the IPCC worst case) the claims of any harm are exceedingly dubious It will be measurable because it is 2-3 times the error in the global temperature estimate..

        Between the CO2 reduction and the biofuels push, one starts to suspect that global warmers are deliberately trying to reduce food availability to put a squeeze on population growth. Extreme environmentalists are on record as wanting to reduce the population to 100 million.

      • Joseph | June 28, 2015 at 12:49 pm |
        The six inch quote was from a CE thread

        Yawn..

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
        “We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. “

        It is what it is. The ocean has to get 1.5-2.1°C warmer to equal MWP temperatures.

      • Willard, that lancet article is ridiculous.

        “3 Protect cardiovascular and respiratory health by ensuring a rapid phase out of coal from the global energy mix. Many of the 2200 coal-fired plants currently proposed for construction globally will damage health unless replaced with cleaner energy alternatives. As part of the transition to renewable energy, there will be a cautious transitional role for natural gas. The phase out of coal is proposed as part of an early and decisive policy package which targets air pollution from the transport, agriculture, and energy sectors, and aims to reduce the health burden of particulate matter (especially PM2.5) and short-lived climate pollutants, thus yielding immediate gains for society.

        from your article.

        “The contribution of regional, urban and traffic sources to PM2.5 and PM10 in an urban area was investigated in this study. The chemical composition of PM2.5 and PM10 was measured over a year at a street location and up- and down-wind of the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The 14C content in EC and OC concentrations was also determined, to distinguish the contribution from “modern” carbon (e.g., biogenic emissions, biomass burning and wildfires) and fossil fuel combustion. It was concluded that the urban background of PM2.5 and PM10 is dominated by the regional background, and that primary and secondary PM emission by urban sources contribute less than 15%. The 14C analysis revealed that 70% of OC originates from modern carbon and 30% from fossil fuel combustion. The corresponding percentages for EC are, respectively 17% and 83%. It is concluded that in particular the urban population living in street canyons with intense road traffic has potential health risks. This is due to exposure to elevated concentrations of a factor two for EC from exhaust emissions in PM2.5 and a factor 2–3 for heavy metals from brake and tyre wear, and re-suspended road dust in PM10. It follows that local air quality management may focus on local measures to street canyons with intense road traffic.”

        From an actual study of PM2.5 in an urban setting. The Lancet article is an opinion piece and an appeal for funding.

      • Thanks, Ragnaar.

        Even if we accept that the document shows that renewable electricity mandates have a high cost, it does not show “far more damage” than, well, let’s say business as usual. Parker Gallant & Glenn Fox are known contrarians, BTW.

        Nevertheless, I’ll read it.

      • > that Lancet article is ridiculous

        Report, Cap’n, from the Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change.

        Thank you for your concerns.

      • > This claim that more CO2 will reduce crop production is an 1984 “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” sort of claim.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Observed_impacts

      • Willard,
        Article, a report would have more due diligence. The advantage of consensus I suppose where you can pick worst cases and project overly optimistic possibilities. If you pick the worst of the worst cases then climate change could be one of the greatest medical opportunities of all time.

      • > Article, a report would have more due diligence.

        Articles don’t have executive summaries that are as long as articles, Cap’n. It is 45 pages long. People refer to it as a report.

        Reports are reports even when Denizens would prefer they paid more due diligence.

        Please, do continue.

      • Willard, I believe you deserve the title of King of the Minions.

        “Droughts have been occurring more frequently because of global warming and they are expected to become more frequent and intense in Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, most of the Americas, Australia, and Southeast Asia”

        From your stellar Wikipedia link. Unless CO2 has some direct impact on ENSO, PDO, AMO and other known weather patterns generally recognized as “causing” wet/dry regimes, that statement is incorrect.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/events/2011/pdf/water-cycle-presentations/Curry_noaaWaterClimate.pdf

        The Great and Power Carbon may someday be able to take credit for droughts and/or floods, but not yet.

      • Willard:
        More similar than on point:
        “When cities cite studies (often produced by parties with an interest in building the stadium) touting the impact of such projects, there is a simple rule for determining the actual return on investment, Matheson said: “Take whatever number the sports promoter says, take it and move the decimal one place to the left. Divide it by ten, and that’s a pretty good estimate of the actual economic impact.””
        http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/
        When economic claims are made I wonder, what CPAs are making them? WAG is that 95% of the time, they are not. Economists as far as I know cannot be sanctioned for erroneous economic claims. By sanctioned I mean, being made un-economists. I suppose the first word a CPA learns is no. No, income wasn’t that high. No, your net worth is not that high. No, we can’t afford that. No, that new project is not likely to succeed. No, you’re using highly optimistic assumptions. And no, that’s not how I read the tax law, but let me look into it. I like the above, move the decimal point advice. My rule of thumb is that governments can shift or redistribute money as opposed to what it cannot do, things like handing out money that results in more tax revenues. Its support functions, education, police, roads do result in more tax revenues I’ll agree, but getting into the middle of sellers and buyers as an economic player with promises of easy money I don’t buy.

      • Your “look! a dried squirrel!” is so 2011, Cap’n.

        Here’s from May 2015:

        Extreme weather events, and more of them, are among the most agreed-upon effects of global warming in all the scientific literature on the subject, said Nielsen-Gammon, who is also a professor at Texas A&M University. Part of the explanation is that ocean temperatures are rising, bringing more moist air into the state that can create storm systems. In the past century, precipitation in Texas is up 7 to 10 percent, and the frequency of two-day heavy rainfall spells has nearly doubled.

        The scientific consensus is much stronger on this point than on whether climate change can directly cause droughts. Nielsen-Gammon’s own research has shown that warmer temperatures due to global warming did make the drought in Texas measurably worse than it otherwise would have been.

        http://aiaahouston.org/ATS/ATS_2013_MinSizePDF_NASA2_NG_climate_change_2.pdf

        Droughts and floods. All good for crops. The more extreme the better.

        Is NG a minion, Cap’n?

      • Willard | June 28, 2015 at 4:48 pm |
        > This claim that more CO2 will reduce crop production is an 1984 “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” sort of claim.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Observed_impacts

        From your link:
        Over the same time period, with medium confidence, global production potential was projected to:[24]

        increase up to around 3 °C,
        very likely decrease above about 3 °C.

        The likely 2100 warming due to 480 PPM is 0.64 W/m2 +/- 0.19 W/m2.

        Hard to get excited about that.

        But lets assume 560 PPM (twice the likely value), 1.28 W/m2 +/-0.38 W/m2.

        Still not terribly exciting. Even if we multiply by 1.5 to get the ECS: 1.92 W/m2 +/- 0.57 W/m2.

        That isn’t even 1°C.

        The other point is that 20-25% of emissions (again from the link) was due to land use change. Indonesia will run out of rainforest in less than 20 years and the amount of rainforest left to burn will be much smaller elsewhere. 20-25% of emissions (and the carbon sink loss that goes with them) are going away.

      • > Its [the government’s] support functions, education, police, roads do result in more tax revenues I’ll agree, but getting into the middle of sellers and buyers as an economic player with promises of easy money I don’t buy.

        Me neither, and yet sellers and buyers always seem to require its presence for something to R&D, susbidize, buyout, or any other way to give some of them a competitive advantage. All this lobbied gamification while American students accumulate one trillion dollars in debt, which may not be the best way to start on the path of the American dream:

        ***

        In any case, thanks to you I found a line from Bob regarding coal in an op-ed I cited in this page of my Contrarian Matrix:

        https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/do-no-harm/

        On the same page, I’ve added a line by Freeman.

        Your name has been added to the Colophon.

        Hope you don’t mind,

        W

      • > Hard to get excited about that.

        Yet that that is enough to show that your appeal to Orwell’s 1984 might be a bit farfetched.

        Speaking of George:

        Those suspicious of political motives for the conflict in Iraq may quote: “War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.” A hawk might then defend the tactics of the same war thus: “To survive it is often necessary to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself.”

        http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/george-orwell-patron-saint-of-hacks/

      • Willard | June 28, 2015 at 6:27 pm |
        > Hard to get excited about that.

        Yet that that is enough to show that your appeal to Orwell’s 1984 might be a bit farfetched.

        Speaking of George:

        The likely warming is less than 0.2 °C but you can make a case for up to 0.5°C. Given that 3°C is where CO2 forcing turns negative (according to your wiki link) there doesn’t seem to be a lot of fuel for concern and beneficial growth is the probable outcome.

        There were good reasons to go into Iraq and bad reasons to go into Iraq. I don’t know if we did it more for good reasons or bad reasons.

      • Willard, nice link, lots of pictures. Did you look at the “Bottom Line for Texas Droughts”?. Last slide.

        Granted, with a warmer land surface temperature drying potential increases and if there is a drought it would be “warmer”, but droughts and flash floods are not something new in Texas.


        SUMMARY/ABSTRACT: Short instrumental climatic records prevent appropriate statistical and historical characterization of extreme events such as the extent, duration, and severity of multiyear droughts. The best solution is to extend climatic records through well-understood proxies of climate. One of the best such proxies is climate-sensitive annual tree rings, which can be dated precisely to the year, are easily sampled, and are widely distributed. We created 3 new baldcypress chronologies in South Central Texas and used them, along with existing Douglas-fir chronologies from West Texas and a composite post oak chronology in Central Texas, to calibrate 1931-2008 and reconstruct June Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) in Texas climate divisions 5 (Trans Pecos), 6 (Edwards Plateau), 7 (S. Central), and 8 (Upper Coast) 1500-2008. We validated the reconstructions against observed data not used in calibration. Most water planners in Texas at present use the drought of the 1950s, 1950-1956, as a worst-case scenario. Our reconstructions show, however, that a number of extended droughts of the past were longer and/or more intense than the 1950s drought. Furthermore, extended droughts have been a consistent feature of southwestern climate since the 800s, including at least 4megadroughts 15- to 30-years long centered in central or northern Mexico (Stahle et al. 2009; 2011b). This and previous studies indicate that severe decadal-scale droughts have occurred in Texas at least once a century since the 1500s. Current use by water planners of the 1950s drought as a worst-case scenario, therefore, is questionable. When water managers consider past droughts, population growth, and climate change, it becomes highly probable that the future poses unprecedented challenges.”

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/f?p=519:1:0::::P1_study_id:13196

      • > Did you look at the “Bottom Line for Texas Droughts”?

        Yes, I did. Did you read the update? It’s here:

        http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/27/climate-change-factor-floods-largely-ignored/

        I forgot to add link citation and to connect to that 2013 talk with something like “extreme events can get extremely extreme.”

        Another quote from the arch-king minion:

        What do climate change models say about drought?

        It depends on how you measure drought. The biggest factor driving drought in Texas and the Great Plains in general is rising temperatures. It’s not clear yet whether the rising temperatures are going to outpace the increase in rainfall that’s been observed to lead to more or less drought overall.

        We certainly know climate change is going to make temperatures warmer, make evaporation more intense and increase water demand for plants and agriculture, so it will make that aspect of drought worse. But it remains to be seen whether droughts overall will become worse, because that depends on rainfall. Since models are generally projecting a rainfall decrease, model-based analyses show some pretty nasty increases in drought intensity in the area.

        http://www.newsweek.com/are-texas-floods-evidence-climate-change-339046

        ***

        > Granted, with a warmer land surface temperature drying potential increases and if there is a drought it would be “warmer”, but droughts and flash floods are not something new in Texas.

        Wait, Cap’n. Does it mean you’d like something absolutely new before connecting dots, like rains of frogs and toads and Chuck Norrises?

        The emphasis seems to meet PA’s challenge, while agreeing with NG’s take on this, so thanks for that.

      • Willard commented

        More meaningless tripe about drought

        Willard, when will the warmist’s make up their minds, the only way they can get the required warming is water amplification, that means more water to carry out of the tropics, not less.
        Where the water vapor goes is down to ocean circulation, AMO, PDO, SOI and the bratty kids.

      • > Given that 3°C is where CO2 forcing turns negative (according to your wiki link) there doesn’t seem to be a lot of fuel for concern and beneficial growth is the probable outcome.

        That minimization sounds less suboptimal than what we started with, PA:

        there is no real cost of carbon emissions.

        It’s also more wordy, so you might even look like a reincarnation of King Solomon. Speaking of whom, why are you throwing all these numbers around, if at the end you can dismiss just about anything using your “there are good and bad reasons and I don’t know which are which”?

      • Willard, that is pretty much what I said. Generally warmer temperatures increase drying potential but “We certainly know climate change is going to make temperatures warmer, make evaporation more intense and increase water demand for plants and agriculture, so it will make that aspect of drought worse. But it remains to be seen whether droughts overall will become worse, because that depends on rainfall.”

        Mega-droughts of 15 to 30 years are indicated in paleo, mini-droughts might be a nicer alternative. Jury’s still out though, ain’t it?

      • Your laser-beam-like focus on droughts in a discussion about observed impacts was a thing of beauty, Cap’n.

        Please, do continue.

      • Willard, Droughts, floods, hurricanes, PM2.5 are all great BS detector inputs. You chose to shift to droughts. Perhaps you can help Mosher raise the 50 Billion so he can eliminate PM2.5 by keeping “all” the coal in the ground? Then y’all can start on PM1.0.

      • > You chose to shift to droughts.

        Tell me who wrote the comment where we can find this, Cap’n:

        Willard, I believe you deserve the title of King of the Minions.

        Droughts […]

        Then tell me who wrote the comment where we can find this:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Observed_impacts

        Then tell me more about the BS detection business you’re running.

      • Willard, You mean the response to the wicked wiki link you posted?

        > This claim that more CO2 will reduce crop production is an 1984 “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” sort of claim.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Observed_impacts

        As for your “45 pages makes it a report not an article” I haven’t stopped laughing yet. Overselling is over selling. Ragnaar’s divide by ten is getting to be a pretty good conversion factor for climate alarmism.

      • > I haven’t stopped laughing yet.

        That show’s you’re a good sport, Cap’n.

        Thanks for playing.

      • Willard | June 28, 2015 at 7:14 pm |

        That minimization sounds less suboptimal than what we started with, PA:

        there is no real cost of carbon emissions.

        In the decade of the greatest emissions increase the GHG forcing went up 0.2 W/m2 (it actually took 11 years). Emissions went from 6.77 GT of carbon in 2000 to 9.46 GT in 2011 according to CDIAC. A 40% increase in emissions caused a 0.2 W/m2 change in forcing.

        That isn’t enough to cause problems. It isn’t enough for GHG forcing to outweigh the benefits of more CO2.

        The post 2011 CO2 emissions increase to date has been less than 5.7%. Color me skeptical that we are headed for problems. The potential for problems and the urgency of global warming seems to be greatly exaggerated.

      • > That isn’t enough to cause problems.

        How much would be enough to cause problems?

        ***

        > It isn’t enough for GHG forcing to outweigh the benefits of more CO2.

        How much GHG forcing would be enough to outweigh the benefits of more CO2?

      • Willard:
        Thank you for adding my name. I reread the elements of the matrix. Found them amusing but mostly apt. I’ll do my best to provide more chaos based WAG theories for your consideration. Nice comment by Robert Bryce. As we do like to refer to Dyson.

      • > the only way they can get the required warming is water amplification, that means more water to carry out of the tropics, not less.

        NG only referred to “evaporation more intense,” micro. This follows directly from more heat in the pipeline. Droughts only implies less water during the time they happen. Inferring less water in the overall system from droughts would be fallacious.

        NG also analyzed Texas droughts: his conclusion only applies at regional scale, in contradistinction to thy Wiki citation.

  19. Well, one thing one can always count on re Hulme is that he’s always “moving on” – and that as he makes the leap from one leaf to the next, he rarely (if ever) sees a need to inform his audience where he’s actually come from!

    IOW, Hulme does not seem to find it necessary to acknowledge his very own “contributions” to – in this instance – the “consensus”. If I didn’t know better, this particular talk of his might have led me to believe that he even accords some measure of credibility (for want of a better word, at the moment) to Cook’s creations.

    Setting aside the appallingly amateur use of a-v technology in recording this session (or at least that’s the view from here), about the only positive thing I could find in Hulme’s presentation is that he has (at long last, or at least for now) decided to forego his customary invention of multi-syllabic words that quite often defy meaning.

    But perhaps this is a consequence of his latest reinvention of himself as leading:

    a new multi-disciplinary MA in Climate Change: History, Culture, Society [… ] This unique MA Programme provides students with the theories, methods and skills to analyse climate change from different historical, cultural and social perspectives. It will enable you to better understand how people in different settings around the world make sense of climate change and the different ways they respond to it.
    […]
    This Master’s Programme starts from the premise that since the idea of climate change has penetrated into all aspects of human life, it is no longer possible to adequately understand and address the risks posed by climate change through only scientific, political and economic analysis.
    […]
    The multi-disciplinary nature of the MA allows students to gain insight into the science of climate change without requiring a science background. […] [Source]

    Newcomers here who may not be familiar with Hulme’s earlier “contributions” and/or “incarnations” … you may take your pick … might be interested in taking a look at The climate consensus coordinators’ cookbook, for which Hulme was indisputably one of the primary “cooks”.

    And/or Honey, I shrunk the consensus! and/or the sequel thereto: How valid is this shrunken “consensus judgement”, anyway?

    Notwithstanding any and/or all of the above, perhaps I should not discount the possibility that Hulme has …uh … “forgotten” his key roles, not to mention his claims and blames … again.

  20. This is very helpful right after the Vatican encyclical. The ethical message of the encyclical is very appealing, but I have reservations about the “climate change” emphasis. Actually, the media is part of the problem, because the encyclical is mostly about the renewal of human relations (with a huge gap about demographic issues), not specifically about “climate change.” Thanks!

  21. Pingback: NOAA’s peak rubbish … | pindanpost

  22. The pathology is climatologists thinking the rest of us are still listening to what they say — sort of like Charles Manson writing a book that the rest of us will buy.

  23. Danny Thomas

    And now for something completely different. Warming oceans, increased “acidification”, “pollution”, over fishing, and yet………………….http://www.newsweek.com/corals-can-genetically-adapt-warming-seas-and-we-might-help-them-do-it-346982

  24. Very nice:
    “This is the ‘consensus gap‘ which ‘consensus entrepreneurs’, as Mike Hulme called them in his lecture, try to fill. Here we leave the emergent scientific consensus as an invisible hand process behind and enter a new phase where this procedural consensus is turned into a product that is used by some to persuade others of its existence.”
    https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/circlingthesquare/2015/06/25/consensus-in-science-brigitte-nerlich/
    These entrepreneurs created something. They have a product. Now some sales promotion may be needed for the product. What’s the point of creating something if not to use it? She seems to channel Adam Smith as good enough, rather than a procedural consensus, that I’ll again write, it likely to be wielded as our President has done. May I liken it to a rhetorical Nerf bat? What I see it’s using scientists for one’s goals. Taking their names and/or their profession’s name. I do commend them for finding a niche, but only if it adds value. Middlemen if that’s what they are should add value, otherwise they might be described as parasitic. I no way is my suggestion the totality of what they’ve done, it’s just an aspect of some of it.

  25. Sub-optimal deliberation. Pretty much sums up the consensus.

  26. In order to do good science, you need to be always be skeptical. You need to ask questions such as “What can I actually conclude from my results?”, “How certain am I that my conclusions are correct?”, and “Are there any other possible explanations that explain the data?”. What troubles me about climate science is that these kinds of questions are almost never asked regarding climate models, at least not in the media.

    When I raise questions about climate models, I am often labeled as a “denier”. This is very frustrating, because I am trying to ask legitimate questions and not just mindlessly denying climate change. The state of the climate debate right now is that even the smallest doubts in the models are getting shot down, and this is not good for science.

  27. ” Imagine a world without consensus entrepreneurs; there would be no need for ‘deniers’!”

    There would be a lot fewer skeptics as well.

  28. Re consensus and its value, I’ve done a little research on some other self-selecting communities. I guess my conclusions won’t really surprise anyone, but are worth sharing nonetheless:

    98% of practising homeopaths sincerely believe that homeopathy is effective

    99% of Catholic priests believe in transubstantiation

    98.5% of drunk drivers are convinced they’re fit enough to drive

    90% of suicide bombers believe that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven. The other 10% believe that if they make it a really really big bang they’ll get a bonus up to a round 80.

    Conclusion: Sincerely believing stuff doesn’t make it so. And ‘consensus’ is not a scientific instrument. Anyone who calls themself a ‘scientist’ demeans themselves by pretending it is. And any other ‘scientist’ who does not call them out as wrong does likewise.

  29. – given data and method in science there is no place for subjectivity. Instead you have uncertainty.
    – consensus building means organizing for action. It depends on collapsing the uncertainty. This requires the introduction of subjective evaluations, changing some parameters on non scientific gronds. This may be necessary if you have to act in one way or the other on some events and the science/evidence is an insufficient basis for action (going to war or not being a good example).

    The questions above are about trust in the process of either science or consensus building which is again subjective.
    Perhaps it is important to keep in mind that any consensus that depends on reducing scientific uncertainty entails some measure of falsification. You need a little leap of faith to take action.

    Trying to make consensus more “scientific” seems to me just to muddle things up at another level. Consensus about the correct “consensus”.
    Then start over again.

    It’s about aligning subjective attitudes to organize collective action. This works better if you can exclude some members from the group.

  30. As I may have mentioned before, what is interesting (to me, at least) is the response to consensus messaging. Whether or not you agree with it as a strategy, it is clear that there is a strong consensus about the fundamentals of AGW. I would even argue that there is a strong consensus amongst experts that most of the warming over recent decades has been anthropogenic. Despite this, there are still people who will attack any attempt to illustrate this consensus. In my view, their attempts would seem more reasonable if they were criticising it as a strategy, rather than claiming that it doesn’t exist.

    To avoid all sorts of strawman arguments (well, attempt to avoid), the existence of a consensus does not tell us that the consensus is correct, or that it won’t change. It is simply an illustration of its existence at some instant in time.

    • Anders, You are correct. The whole notion of consensus rubs me very much the wrong way. I’ll give it some thought. If I can think of a way to explain it I’ll get back to you. May take a couple of days.

    • The reaction to the “concensus” may vary with people perceptions as to whether the concensus is “organic” or forced. To the extent people feel dissent is stifled they will be less inclined to embrace it. To the extent that the concensus is open to challenges and seems to seriously grapple with them – the more credible it will seem.

      In my case I see more of what shows up in the press than maybe what scientists are saying. Perhaps the press is doing a disservice to the science.

      • In my case I see more of what shows up in the press than maybe what scientists are saying. Perhaps the press is doing a disservice to the science.

        I think this is certainly true and – in my view – one should be careful of judging the science on the basis of what one reads in the press. There are arguments to suggest that scientists should put more effort into correcting press mis-representations, and although I agree with this in principle, it is not necessarily their job, they’re busy enough as it is, and it is much harder than it may at first appear.

      • Most newspaper correspondents lack science/engineering training and education. They write the goofiest content with very poor graphics, and quite a few cant even do basic math.

        The Spanish press is worse, it’s so bad a couple of times I pointed out mistakes and the article was pulled from the web within hours.

      • But Ken, correcting mis-representations is absolutely crucial, i.e. what Mosher calls ‘policing your own side’. It’s the same in business – if you let the sales force run away with what they are promising, then no matter how good the actual product, customers are going to feel let down.

        This also comes back to the previous thread about Pascal. To persuade, you must appear persuadable and criticising those who you fundamentally agree with must be a key part of that.

        I see almost no evidence of forceful criticism of any bad ‘consensus’ science from the ‘consensus’ side, and that rings some very big alarm bells.

      • JA,
        I’m not arguing against correcting mis-representations, simply pointing out that scientists are not obliged to and that a free press gives journalists the right to present whatever they want. Of course, if a scientist signs off on a press release that doesn’t correctly present their research, that’s a different issue. I’m simply referring to situations where the media presents a story. A scientist cannot insist that it is changed, in the same way that a politician can’t do so.

        I see almost no evidence of forceful criticism of any bad ‘consensus’ science from the ‘consensus’ side, and that rings some very big alarm bells.

        You’re probably not looking hard enough. There was a lot of pushback about methane bombs last year and I’ve seen some being highly critical of recent headlines about the collapse of civilisation by 2040.

        Again, if you choose to judge science by what is presented in the media, you’re likely to get a poor idea of our current understanding.

      • Ken,

        I do try to keep up with developments across the divide in climatology, so for example I’m aware of the ridicule that was directed towards Peter Wadhams recently about his Arctic ice collapse theory. I saw that as a very positive step.

        But there are still far too many examples of terrible science, that have become poster-boys for the consensus, and remain holy cows that may not be publicly criticised.

        Perhaps you have pointed out some of the gross errors in papers from Mann or Lewandowsky, I’m not sure as I don’t check your blog as often as some others.

    • By the way can you (or anybody) give me any examples of other branches of science where the notion of consensus is so entrenched and all important?

      • I guess evolution is maybe another, but I think you need to also consider the influence of those who try to claim that a consensus does not exist. In my view, one reason why consensus messaging is prevalent in climate science is to address claims that there is no consensus. This is quite rare, given that something similar doesn’t happen in other science areas.

      • one reason why consensus messaging is prevalent in climate science is to address claims that there is no consensus.

        chicken or egg?
        your egg, my chicken?
        we see things differently.

      • chicken or egg?
        your egg, my chicken?
        we see things differently.

        I guess you’re arguing that those disputing the consensus are doing so because of the consensus studies, rather than the consensus studies existing because of those disuting its existence. The problem is that there clearly is a strong consensus, so disputing this is almost certainly wrong. Hence my point that criticising the strategy of consensus messaging may be a valid criticism, but disputing the existence of a consensus is almost certainly not.

      • It’s interesting to think why concensus is important for evolution. Generally in terms of science and policy relating to evolution, I would say perception of a concensus is not important. It only became important in regards to deciding what should be taught in public schools. Other than that and for culture war issues – I don’t think concensus would have come on the radar with evolution any more than it would with germ theory.

      • Anders, Yes, Evolution. And I hold some unconventional views on that too!

        Not that I think it doesn’t exist – quite the opposite. I think that sometimes it works faster than can be explained by chance. There may well be mechanisms of “natural genetic engineering” which have simply not yet been discovered.

        In as far as any whiff of Lamarckism remains anathema however, the consensus on evolution may also be hindering advancement in that field also!

      • I agree with AP, I don’t recall very much of an argument from consensus on evolution, at least nowhere near as much as with global warming.

      • I guess you’re arguing that those disputing the consensus are doing so because of the consensus studies, rather than the consensus studies existing because of those disuting its existence.

        Im sure it’s both. My subjective view sees more of one than the other, and i suspect you do too. ;-)

      • I dispute the consensus studies because the ones that output ‘97%’ are scientific bilge of the first rank. Truly awful. For example:
        https://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/a-conspiracy-unmasked/

        I don’t dispute that there is some sort of consensus, though I suspect the different grades of certainty (and especially what they are more or less certain about anyway) are so fragmentary as to make any attempt to quantify it meaningless.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I haven’t been paying attention. Have there been a lot of attacks on the Verheggen study?

      • Depends on your definition of “attack”, but there is this, plus – I think – associated blog posts by the author of that comment.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Perhaps there are problems with the methodology but it seems close to other polls that I would consider legitimate. Note that the results of the poll were posted and nobody seemed too excited about it. It doesn’t elicit an attack response out of me.

      • One criticism I saw somewhere (cannot remember exactly where) was that the Verheggen study excluded the response “I don’t know” from its analysis.

      • you saw it in a comment from me, which came from an email from Joe Duarte

    • ==> “In my view, their attempts would seem more reasonable if they were criticising it as a strategy, rather than claiming that it doesn’t exist.”

      Most people – including most “skeptics” – on most topics accept using a “consensus” as a heuristic as a matter of course.

      Many people don’t accept the “consensus” view on topics that become politicized, and as an alternative seek out “experts” instead who will support how they identify ideologically on the issue and weigh “expert” opinion accordingly.

      We can see the same with how many Republicans reacted to the “consensus” views regarding Ebola. When the issue became politicized, they rejected the scientific consensus and instead sought out “experts” whose views aligned politically.

      Democrats, of course, are not immune that that type of reasoning. There is no reason to expect that cultural cognition/motivated reasoning would be distributed disproportioinately across ideological boundaries. The underlying causal mechanisms that create motivated reasoning are rooted in basic human psychological and cognitive attributes.

    • I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t attack any or every attempt to discuss consensus. I do challange people who refer to incredibly shoddy academic work like that from Lewandowski and Cook to manufacture a numeric value to assign to a consensus. I will also challange people who attempt to use the consensus argument as the primary justification to enact policies they are in favor of.

    • catweazle666

      “it is clear that there is a strong consensus about the fundamentals of AGW”

      Such a shame nobody bothered telling Mother Nature that, isn’t it?

      Without her co-operation – which does not appear to be forthcoming – you and your consensus buddies are on a hiding to nothing.

  31. I’m interested in supporting or diverging viewpoints on this. What are examples of a majority of the “public” holding out (and for how long) against concensus science (where the science has held up Or been discarded)?

    I’m thinking usually the public gets on board pretty quick once it’s settled among scientists/experts: Continental drift, vaccinations, medical treatments for example. Did expert opinion become accepted by the public quickly (which is a diifferent question than did people stop smoking)?

    The best counter example I can think of is evolutionary theory. This is largely because it challenges some powerful religious forces. But overwhelmingly people accept the medical findings and policy implications of the associated Science. Also, acceptance around the safety of nuclear power lags expert opinion.

    When the science is wrong people seem, usually to jump on the concensus as best they can anyway (low fat diets). I’d like to see others takes here, but my preliminary take is that valid concensus science is usually embraced by the public, especially if it speaks to increasing benefits or reducing harm, but is resisted by the public if it threatens deeply held beliefs.

    • valid concensus science is usually embraced by the public, especially if it speaks to increasing benefits or reducing harm, but is resisted by the public if it threatens deeply held beliefs.

      That certainly seems to be the case, although I can’t claim to have done any kind of exhaustive study. In a sense, isn’t this what people like Dan Kahan have been suggesting with their research?

      • ==> ” In a sense, isn’t this what people like Dan Kahan have been suggesting with their research?”

        Kahan notes that on the vast majority of cases people (including most “skeptics”) accept not only the “consensus” view, but also the heuristic that following the expert consensus on highly complex issues where expertise is likely to meaningfully informative is generally the best bet. He notes that some issues touch of political identifications but IIRC, doesn’t have an explanation for why some issues become politicized as opposed to others. IIRC, he frequently poses the question as to what might explain why some issues become politicized but doesn’t have evidence to support an answer.

      • Okay, so you’re suggesting that in many cases the consensus is accepted, but when it’s not it can be aligned with a political identification. However, there isn’t really a good explanation for why this might happen?

      • Joshua wrote:
        “Kahan… doesn’t have an explanation for why some issues become politicized as opposed to others.”

        Gosh, yes – how on Earth did climatology become politicised? Surely it’s pure coincidence that it become such a heavily publicised issue so soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, what with all those peace campaigners and proto-Marxists being at a loose end. I’m sure it’s the fault of those nasty capitalists, eh?

      • ==> “Okay, so you’re suggesting that in many cases the consensus is accepted, but when it’s not it can be aligned with a political identification. However, there isn’t really a good explanation for why this might happen?

        I think that would fairly characterize Kahan’s take. I’ll ask him for confirmation.

        But then again, we can ask Jonathan. He clearly has it figured out.

        Of course, he has no actual empirical analysis to support his certain conclusions. He seems content to go with his anecdote-based reasoning, with no effort to control for his confirmation, observer, etc., biases. Well, that’s certainly his right.

        Some may consider such a position to be “skeptical” and not skeptical. IMO, skeptics rely on empirical evidence to ground their conclusions. But maybe that’s just me.

      • Looks like Kahan is “out of the pocket.” Confirmation may not happen for a while.

      • Anders –

        ==> “However, there isn’t really a good explanation for why this might happen?

        Just a bit more on that – as the “why this might happen” in your comment is kind of ambiguous. Does it mean why it happens with one particular issue or another? or why do people pick and choose when to rely on expert consensus in correlation (if the causality is unclear) with ideological orientation? I would would argue there is no good explanation for the first question (Jonathan’s explanation notwithstanding) but there is solid evidence in answer to the second question. Motivated reasoning is pretty firmly embedded in human psychological and cognitive attributes (identity-related aggression and defense).

      • Anders –

        Re: your question about Kahan:

        As for “why some” & “not others,” I certainly don’t have a simple explanation. But it is clear that there is nothing inevitable about it, and that misadventure & accident are likely as important as — more than even — calculation & strategic behavior in the case of the issues in which positions on risk or like facts become “entangled” in antagonistic cultural meanings.

        See the HBV vs. HPV case, which is for me the most instructive example of the general problem associated with the absence of a science-informed mechanism for managing the quality of the science communication environment.

        You are right that I pose the question frequently — why this & not that? To remark the relative infrequency of the sorts of polarized risk conflicts we are obsessed with; to underscore that there is nothing inevitable; and to try to excite & entice others to do join in the project of using science’s signature methods of disciplined observation, reliable measurement, and valid causal inference to try to help make this mysterious process less so.

        The links he embedded:

        https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.culturalcognition.net_blog_2013_1_21_a-2Dcase-2Dstudy-2Dthe-2Dhpv-2Dvaccine-2Ddisaster-2Dscience-2Dof-2Dscience-2Dcom.html&d=AwMDaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=54livovpc1iQ2DWOdFVD10jKfD853M5ZW8lkPjKRbzk&m=bTra2UCv1ZqcnCIc6a16V-2H1y2Q_Ydf9BEuWrLS8-0&s=AWMtmqN8qFKBin-A40j_xLWT8DVlBdiJg9U6MC08ex8&e=

        https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__static1.1.sqspcdn.com_static_f_386437_26322005_1435330704287_dmk-5Fscience-5Fvaccines.pdf-3Ftoken-3DAzCYHRyQ82rZQwW1f3yyE4c970A-253D&d=AwMDaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=54livovpc1iQ2DWOdFVD10jKfD853M5ZW8lkPjKRbzk&m=bTra2UCv1ZqcnCIc6a16V-2H1y2Q_Ydf9BEuWrLS8-0&s=Qh5Gullc4Ab2w-Ew-Cf8ZLk8_32untSCl238v35y8ng&e=

        He offers up public disputes about HPV vaccination as an example of where polarization has cropped up when ordinarily “expert consensus” on science-related public policy is uncontroversial.

        While he describes the “source” [of risk controversy] as being “cultural cognition” it seems to me that he finds more of a causal explanation in how the science is communicated than makes sense to me. IMO, , that’s finding causality in the state of the barn doors well after they’ve been opened and the horses have bolted – if you get my drift.

    • That’s an interesting point, PE. Remember that global warming did come near the top of people’s lists of concerns a few years ago, even if now it doesn’t even register. I’d guess the reason is that none of the big, scary predictions came true: no flood of millions of refugees, no mega-droughts, no mad rush of hurricanes roaring across the Atlantic. People notice that sort of thing. They may vaguely believe the science, but they just aren’t buying into the alarmism, no matter how big the consensus on that.

      While we have a great time tumbling and fighting across the various blogs, because we find the climate and/or the politics interesting, for the vast mass of people reducing CO2 output has faded into just another do-gooder badge to wave around, like supermarkets sticking Fair Trade logos on the side of all their packaging.

      • Jonathan-I think you are right. The alarmist science, like the low fat diet did not deliver the promised goods. Public support for expert concensus waits in those type situations.

      • Danny Thomas

        PE,
        I wasn’t asked, but wanted to offer some commentary w/r/t “consensus” and it’s use in the climate discussion.
        The term comes about (as I understand it) as a survey looking backwards in time, but it’s application is to reinforce the strength of arguments going forwards.
        It’s become interchangable with “mainstream”.
        Thinking as logically as I’m capable and looking at these definitions:
        Scientific Consensus: “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.”
        Mainstream: “the dominant trend in opinion”
        Appeal to Authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

        For this observer, I can comfortably state that there is a consensus that “the sky is blue” (except at night; at sunset; at sunrise; and depending on the sight of the observer {http://www.colormatters.com/color-matters-for-kids/how-animals-see-color}) (Sounds like a climate discussion, eh?)

        It’s these huge holes which for me take away any value to the term “consensus” leading me to fully agree that use of it in the climate discussion needs to be reconsidered.

        Pardon the interruption.

      • Public support wains

        Possibly, but since science isn’t actually done via consensus, this doesn’t really matter (scientifically, at least) :-)

      • Yep. Out here in reality-land, hardly anything has changed in the climate.

        Temperatures where we live ain’t changing. They go up and bit and down a bit but they’re pretty much stuck at 287+/-0.5K.

        Maybe the deep oceans have indeed warmed as claimed by 0.09C in the last 50 years. And maybe they haven’t. But whether they have or not it doesn’t really matter. It s a tiny effect.

        There are no more hurricanes or typhoons or other nasty weather than there ever has been. Today’s alarmist catchphrase ‘Climate disruption’ is completely free of either definition, meaning or testability (by design?).

        And surely the true indicator is that the Maldive Islands – poster child for global warming disasters only a few years ago – is building airports to bring extra tourists in, not to take the native population out.

        I live near London. 35 years ago we were promised that by now we would have the pleasant climate of the Loire Valley, 250 miles further south in France. It ain’t happened.

        I want my money back!

      • ATTP -“Possibly, but since science isn’t actually done via consensus, this doesn’t really matter (scientifically).”

        I agree it should not matter for the science. It does matter for policy which is impacted by concensus. The problem is the policy-science interplay. Do you overplay science to get the “right” policy outcome or does the practice of science continue as is, regardless of whether it will be effectual or not. I understand the motivation for gilding the science a little, but the impacts long term are pernicious.

      • It does matter for policy which is impacted by concensus. The problem is the policy-science interplay.

        Indeed, and it’s the policy response that regularly leads me to hope that my general understanding of the scientific evidence is wrong (or that the evidence itself is wrong) and that those who dispute it (or have a rather selective view of the evidence) turn out to be correct.

      • > I’d like to see others takes here, but my preliminary take is that valid concensus science is usually embraced by the public.

        This preliminary take is wrong headed, even in the case of low fat diets. The food industry succeeded is making people switch to margarine, for instance. It also succeeded in creating generations following a diet consisting of daily sugar overdoses.

        There are only three choices: lipids, glucids, and protids. Oprah learned that one does not simply take on the protein industry:

        http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/21/oprah.beef/

        When you have sugar to sell, bashing fat goes without saying. Not that it prevented sugar seller to sell trans fat:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-moves-to-ban-trans-fat-from-us-food-supply/2015/06/16/f8fc8f18-1084-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

        ***

        Denizens ought to tread lightly on that one. Judging scientific results based on their public acceptance may be suboptimal. Selling sugar is easier than a carbon tax, I suppose.

    • PE – but then, there are still a lot of loons out there … from the article:

      Hundreds of parents besieged the Capitol during a series of legislative hearings to oppose the bill in the belief that vaccines are unsafe, that the proposal would violate their privacy rights and that they alone — not the state — should choose whether to vaccinate their children.

      More gathered for the vote on Thursday.

      “This bill puts the state between children and parents regardless of your
      position on vaccination,” said Luke Van der Westhuyzem, a parent from Walnut Creek who was among dozens of protesters at the Capitol.

      http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-vaccine-mandate-bill-up-for-vote-thursday-in-california-assembly-20150624-story.html

    • > valid concensus science is usually embraced by the public

      Therefore AGW is a hoax.

      • Willard,

        Never a truer word. I salute you!

      • > Never a truer word.

        The word belongs to the future, MikeF.

        How do you know it’s true?

      • Willard

        -You can dispute the premise is you like.
        -Accepting the premise I think it raises an interesting question of why the public would be different in this case. I think we might disagree on the reasons for that, but I think discussing those differences could be a fruitful dialogue.

        -Taking a quote from my comments out of the context in which they were offered and providing a dismissal based on your own conjuncture – not much value there.

      • > You can dispute the premise is you like.

        Actually, I dispute your inference with that comment. Your premise is false too, as I showed in another comment.

        ***

        > Accepting the premise I think it raises an interesting question of why the public would be different in this case.

        You beat your wife. You may dispute that premise. If you accept it, it may lead to a fruitful dialog based on all kinds of interesting counterfactuals.

        Next: God exists.

        In other words, don’t burden others to disprove your working hypotheses, and be more forthright when you indulge in counterfactual thinking.

        ***

        > Taking a quote from my comments out of the context

        How so?

        Your argument has been dogwhistled loud and clear, Planning One:

        (1) A consensus that is correct is very popular.

        (2) AGW is not very popular

        (3) AGW is a hoax.

        There are many fallacies in that argument, Planning One. For starters, it looks like post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      • Willard,

        You wrote –

        “> Never a truer word.

        The word belongs to the future, MikeF.

        How do you know it’s true?”

        I’m not sure why you say “The word belongs to the future”. This appears to be a nonsense statement.

        In any case, I cannot foresee the future. Nor can anyone else, as far as I know.

        So, how do I know the future is true? Well, whatever happens will be true, is that not so? The future, by definition is true. It cannot be otherwise, otherwise it would not be the future. I assume you are only pretending to be stupid, but I cannot be sure that this is the truth.

        AGW, as you posit, is a hoax, a fraud, a nonsense, however you wish to present it, unless you can adduce scientific evidence to the contrary. Of course you can’t, which Is why you are reduced to hand waving and puerile attempts at Warmist sophistry.

        A few facts would support your implied assertion. However, you appear to be distinctly lacking in anything even remotely associated with reality. If you have anything relevant to put forward, I am sure commenters on both sides would be most grateful.

        Over to you, Willard. Flatten me with fact, if you can.

      • > I’m not sure why you say “The word belongs to the future”. This appears to be a nonsense statement.

        AGW worked so far. It may be false, but only the future will tell. Assuming MikeF’ doctrine that we don’t “know” the future, we can’t say that AGW is a hoax unless we know the future.

        (My argument is independent from the first premise, cf. Goodman’s enigma.)

        Since MikeF accepts “AGW is a hoax” as truer than everything else, than I conclude that MikeF only holds his “we can’t know the future” when it suits him.

      • Willard – I shared my perspective and asked for others to do the same. I’m not owning up to any BS arguments you heard from a dog whistle.

        I’d like to live in a world where people shared their perspectives. I’m not impressed by people who remain coy about their own and then attack. Nor am I impressed by those who respond to a sharing of perspectives and requests for dialogue with “don’t burden others to disprove your working hypothesis.”

      • Willard,

        You wrote –

        “AGW worked so far.” Really? I asked for fact, but you have responded with wishful thinking. Worked? Really?

        What work has been done? A fact or two would be nice, but you have none. Not one. Where is this “AGW” with which you are so enamoured? Or is it more a “quoted AGW”, as opposed to a genuine AGW, which might well exist, but has nothing at all to do with quoted GHGs.

        Or do you claim that CO2 causes quoted AGW? Are you a quoted Warmist, or the genuine article?

        I am not at all confused, but I suspect you most certainly are.

      • > valid concensus science is usually embraced by the public

        valid science is never promoted as a consensus

      • > valid science is never promoted as a consensus

        http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

      • > I’m not owning up to any BS arguments you heard from a dog whistle.

        The argument I heard sounds a lot like this one:

        I think you are right. The alarmist science, like the low fat diet did not deliver the promised goods. Public support for expert concensus waits in those type situations.

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/25/scientists-speaking-with-one-voice-panacea-or-pathology/#comment-712983

        Using the epithet “alarmist science” has implications. So does agreeing with this “for the vast mass of people reducing CO2 output has faded into just another do-gooder badge to wave around”.

      • Steven Mosher

        another flynn

        flynn: Never a truer word. I salute you!
        Willard: the word belongs to the future.

        flynn:I’m not sure why you say “The word belongs to the future”. This appears to be a nonsense statement.”

        Wrong.

        Never a truer word. Never means there will come no time. Inn other words NEVER a truer word, means there will come no time at which
        anything will be more true. The word never belongs to the future.

        At a deeper level flynn has defined knowledge out of existence.

      • Steven Mosher

        another fylnn

        “So, how do I know the future is true? Well, whatever happens will be true, is that not so? The future, by definition is true.”

        This is a category mistake. “true” is a property of statements.

        “whatever happens will be true, is that not so?”

        no. whatever happens will be real. True is a property of statements.

        Further, one can see the non functionality of flynns statement by
        substitution. The past is true by definition. the present is true by definition. the future is true by definition. Whatever has happened, has happened. whateever is happening, is happening. whatever happens, will have happened. What we see in this is that “being true” is non functional WRT distinguishing being past present and future. Its a wheel that doesnt turn.
        In other words pure unadulterated metaphysics: being is true.

        The question is not “can we know the future?”. the question is can we make true statements about the future.

      • David Springer

        “never a truer word” is a colorful way of saying “a true word”. There are no levels of true so all true words are equally true. There is no such thing as a word that is truer than true. Hence it’s a truism (pun intended) that there will never be a truer than true word.

    • I thought of what might be another countered example. Many within the general public were very wary of seat belts, long after “expert” opinion concluded that individuals were safer belted in. This seems a strong example of n instance where many disputed expert concensus such that it served to work against their own self interest. Was the internal mechanism whereby personal judgement took precedence over expert opinion? Did the imagined risk of being belted in during a crash took precedence over their experience of driving belt less? Do some of us fear mitigation more than we fear temperature rises?

  32. Are ‘consensus’ and ‘settled’
    Terms of real science,
    Or are they just being used
    By those seeking compliance?
    http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/theres-something-afoot/

  33. If the scientific consensus is that the Earth is 20 million years old, does it make it so? If the scientific consensus is that the atom is indivisible, does it make it so?

    If the consensus of climate scientists is that studying the average of weather is a science, does it make it so?

    I think not, but climate scientists do. Decision makers who make this apparent irrational madness possible, obviously believe that incessant studying of an average leads to something of value.

    Ah, the rich, mad, chaotic, multicoloured tapestry of life, what?

  34. David Wojick

    I fail to see how the presence of a dissenting minority report strengthens the authority of the majority report. That is a strange theory of evidence, to say the least. The reason consensus messaging has failed is simply because there is no consensus.

    • richardswarthout

      David

      If the dissenting minority report and the majority report sufficiently reveal the deliberations, a reader could come to his/her own conclusions. When the public knows both sides and reaches independent conclusions the majority of the those conclusions will probably align with the majority report, and will more strongly trust the majority report. Because,after all, the majority report conclusions are now also their conclusions.

      Richard

  35. Actual science doesn’t worry about its image.

    • Or actual scientists worry about being part of a
      consensus.

      Did Galileo wish to be part of the crowd? What
      about Newton or Hutton, or Lyell or Darwin?
      Did Einstein ? … Or Judith?

  36. Consensus is important because the herding instinct, like gullibility, is a Natural human condition. It may turn out to be a fatal flaw.

  37. One might wonder why the study of the average of weather is considered to be a science.

    I suppose if “climate scientists” say it is so, then it must be so. After all, you are paying for it, so it must be true.

    Foolishness loves company.

    • So you’re having house guests. That’s great. Have a good time.

    • richardswarthout

      Mike,

      Catholic seminaries teach that theology is a science. Never understood why, but never spent much time exploring the topic.

      Richard

  38. ATTP: “science isn’t actually done via consensus”

    Are you now saying skeptics are right and we can all go home now?

    Andrew

    • Assuming you mean “skeptics” rather than skeptics, then if you’re suggesting that science isn’t done via consensus, then I would argue you’re right about that. That science isn’t done via consensus does not, however, mean that all scientific ideas have equivalent validity.

      • David Wojick

        How do quoted skeptics differ from plain skeptics?

      • Quoted skeptics aren’t genuine skeptics :-)

        More seriously, skepticism is a part of the scientific method. Using it to refer to people who are skeptical of mainstream climate science is using it in the wrong context, IMO. Everyone should be skeptical; that’s how science progresses. If you don’t trust something, it would be more appropriate to use the word dubious, than the word skeptical.

      • Ken, I’m curious – why do you use the American spelling?

      • JA,
        I have no idea. I spent quite a bit of time living there, I wasn’t brought up in the UK? It’s not a conscious decision.

      • Jonathan

        You must have been reading my mind, I was curious as to why he didn’t use the proper spelling. When spelt with a ‘k’ it is well known that the comment can be immediately discarded :)

        tonyb

      • When spelt with a ‘k’ it is well known that the comment can be immediately discarded

        That’s what I say whenever Tom Fuller uses “Konsensus” :-)

      • David Wojick

        ATTP: I do not see how skepticism is part of the scientific method. But in any case, in the context of the climate debate skeptics refers to a specific group, namely those that are skeptical of CAGW. Which is not mainstream science, by the way, just one position in the scientific debate. Calling CAGW mainstream science is a rhetorical trick, as is quoting the word skeptics. It seems to me that you use a lot of rhetorical tricks.

      • David,

        I do not see how skepticism is part of the scientific method.

        Try reading this.

        But in any case, in the context of the climate debate skeptics refers to a specific group, namely those that are skeptical of CAGW.

        Okay, but you’re using skeptic in the sense of being suspicious, not in the sense normally applied to scientific skepticism.

        Calling CAGW mainstream science is a rhetorical trick,

        I wasn’t calling CAGW mainstream science. CAGW is your term.

        It seems to me that you use a lot of rhetorical tricks.

        I’m not trying to use rhetorical tricks. That you might not like what I’m saying, does not make it so.

      • David:

        ==> “ATTP: I do not see how skepticism is part of the scientific method. ”

        The scientific method involves empirical analysis as a way to control for biases. That’s skepticism.

      • > I do not see how skepticism is part of the scientific method.

        Scepticism is an attitude that embodies an epistemic virtue. It’s prudence regarding knowledge. Contrarians are flattering themselves when they call themselves sceptics.

        Scientists oftentimes portray their method as requiring this attitude. It can easily lead to moral grandstanding, like Feynman’s Cargo cult mansplanation. At the very least, this shows that science carries values, contrary to the “just the facts” meme.

        If one wishes to have Scepticism built-in the scientific method, here’s one idea to explore:

        http://www.zetetique.net

        which should not be conflated with incredibilism:

        http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/

        ***

        In any case, beware that a sceptic is never wrong. This perfection comes at a price: he’s never right either.

        With low power come low responsibility.

      • catweazle666

        …and Then There’s Physics” “Quoted skeptics aren’t genuine skeptics :-)”

        Perhaps we can do something similar for scientists, yes?

        For example, climate scientists who deny the pause/hiatus could be referred to as climate “scientists”.

        How’s that grab you Kenny?

    • ATTP,

      You wrote –

      “Quoted skeptics aren’t genuine skeptics :-)”

      Presumably, this is the same Warmist nonsense that says the quoted surface isn’t the genuine surface, the quoted greenhouse effect isn’t the genuine greenhouse effect, and quoted positive feedbacks aren’t genuine positive feedbacks.

      But I suppose quoted tipping points aren’t genuine tipping points, and quoted climate science isn’t genuine science.

      Oh dear, it might even be be that quoted global warming isn’t genuine global warming, and then where would we be?

      At least we can be reassured that quoted dimwits are not genuine dimwits. Or are they? Let me know.

      • Mike,
        My point is that skepticism is a fundamental part of science. All scientists would regard themselves as skeptics. So, if someone is going to ask me “are skeptics right” then either they mean everyone involved in this scientific topic, which make it impossible to actually answer the question, or they mean a subset of people, and I don’t think they get to decide who is a genuine skeptic and who isn’t.

      • ATTP,

        Your answer makes no sense at all. You may have left something out, for all I know. I cannot read your mind.

        You presume to speak on behalf of all scientists, but might I suggest that some scientists might be supremely unskeptical of ideas they believe to be true.

        I don’t believe the indivisibility of the atom to be a fact.
        I don’t believe that surrounding a body with CO2 will raise its temperature.

        If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Show me a fact that contradicts my belief, and I’ll rethink.

      • “All scientists would regard themselves as skeptics.”

        How can we tell if they are genuine skeptics?

        Andrew

      • You presume to speak on behalf of all scientists, but might I suggest that some scientists might be supremely unskeptical of ideas they believe to be true.

        No, I’m not speaking on behalf of all scientists. I’m pointing out that the term skeptic just refers to the standard scientific practice of testing hypotheses and not immediately accepting a piece of scientific research. It’s essentially all-encompasing. Therefore if someone is going to ask me about skeptics, they’re going to have to define what they mean by that term as I take it to essentially mean everyone. In the context of climate science I typically take it to mean those dubious/suspicious of mainstream climate science. Being dubious/suspicious, however, is not the same as being skeptical/sceptical.

      • ATTP,

        You wrote –

        “All scientists would regard themselves as skeptics.”, and followed it up by saying “No, I’m not speaking on behalf of all scientists.”

        You can see how I might think that ” ‘All scientists’ ” is not the same as “all scientists”. This appears in the same vein as the Warmist “surface” not being the same as the actual “surface”.

        The Warmist Waffle, or instantaneous redefinition at whim, is losing its impact.

        But back to your original “All scientists would regard themselves as skeptics.” quote. As I said, I don’t believe the calculation of averages of weather events is much of a science, unless you cannot find a real job as a scientist. The fact that self proclaimed “climate scientists” show no desire to be skeptical about some of the more preposterous claims made by some consensus members, show that by your assessment they are not really scientists anyway.

        I am not sure whether this was your intent, but maybe “what you said” was not really the same as “what you said”.

        Maybe you could stick to facts. I can understand facts. They seem to be the same for everyone, apart from Warmists. With Warmists, “facts” seem not to be necessarily the same as “facts”, which is why “climate science” is looking more and more like a contradiction in terms.

      • ATTP, you’ve kind of been dining out on not looking specifically at the writings of those you criticize. Your favorite phrases seem to be ‘I am struggling to understand’ and ‘I haven’t looked closely at it but…’

        You are quick to adopt charged phrasing such as ‘mitigation skeptic’ but you do no investigation of the concepts involved. You repeatedly mis-state the positions of those who don’t agree with the Consensus, let alone the ravings of the Konsensus, despite having your errors repeatedly pointed out to you.

        So when you say that skeptic willingness to investigate claims is the hallmark of a real scientist, I hope I can be forgiven for wondering if that describes a set that doesn’t include you?

      • David Springer

        Maybe Ken Rice can modify his name. And then there’s “physics”.

  39. “if you’re suggesting that science isn’t done via consensus, then I would argue you’re right about that”

    Well, that’s what you stated. It means that those who bleat “consensus” about climate science are simply making noise. So what can and should we do about that?

    Andrew

  40. The IPCC models say that increasing greenhouse gas forcing of the climate should cause increasingly positive Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations giving a more northerly atmospheric circulation pattern, and I fully agree, a stronger solar signal does the same.

    Now if someone can show me in the observational data that increasingly positive AO/NAO relates directly to amplified warming of the Arctic, I’ll pay them.

  41. “As I’ve written many times before, it is time for the IPCC to abandon their consensus seeking process, and stick to a more straightforward assessment of what we know…” – JC

    “what we know” – judged by a consensus??

    Go away for a while and come back to the same old nonsense.

    • welcome back Michael. Yes, deja vu often springs to mind or Joshua’s ‘same ol same ol…’

      tonyb

      • tony –

        I’ve switched to sameosameo (stole it from someone, don’t remember were).

        I think it captures it a bit better.

    • Go away for a while and come back to the same old nonsense.

      Bit like watching a typical soap opera on TV. Stop watching, catch a single episode years later, and immediately know the story line.

      • Exactly, just like reading your posts always predictable.

      • What willbe AT’s next comment, ordvic?

      • Has the story line on your blogs changed over the years, kenny? Aren’t you geniuses still grinding the same ole axes?

        “Stop watching, catch a single episode years later, and immediately know the story line.”

        I can’t suggest that you do just that, because for some silly reason known only to her, Judith will delete my comment. But insults like this, are OK:

        “Go away for a while and come back to the same old nonsense.”

      • for some silly reason known only to her, Judith will delete my comment. But insults like this, are OK:

        Fair enough, but maybe Judith could explain how what she said wasn’t essentially contradictory. How is a straightforward assessment of what we know, not a representation of our current consensus position?

      • I’m deleting all the boring cat fight comments that no one other than the cats who are fighting would be interested in reading

      • Willard, something diparaging about JC or some hapless commenter here.It’s too bad because he has a lot to offer and is wasting his time in trivial persuit. He won’t allow that type of behavior on his site but takes full advantage here. A double standard. My advise to him would be not to engage with those here that are equally disparaging. It would be more fruitful if he used his talents in constructive engagement.

      • Willard, perhaps you could tell me what JCs next post will be?

      • Judith

        I was interested to know if the climate science scene/debate/perspective is the same in the UK as in the US, both from the scientific viewpoint and that of the non scientists you might have met.

        tonyb

      • Hi Tony, I will be addressing this in a future post.

      • > I’m deleting all the boring cat fight comments that no one other than the cats who are fighting would be interested in reading

        There’s no reason why Don Don’s comments should be being deleted, then. Everybody loves Don Don.

      • Don Monfort

        Thanks, willy. But that’s not quite accurate. Everybody who knows me loves me.

      • ATTP,
        I want to apologize to you for my over the top remarks regarding your posting. I do know that you ‘constructively engage’ with commenters here. That post was an emotional responce to your post and I had no business disparaging you and condescending lecturing. I actually have a good deal of respect for your opinions.

        Willard, I also apologize to you for making a false prediction. I also apologize for past remarks characterizing your posts that was an ad hom attack if if I meant it jokingly as you didn’t see it that way.

    • richardswarthout

      Micheal

      “What we don’t know” might also be appropriate. For instance, internal variability is an important part of the IPCC fingerprint method of determining the level of AGW. However, there no way of directly observing internal variability. Near as I can determine, after reading the pertinent parts of AR5 ch 9 and ch 10 and pertinent references, it appears that the internal variability is determined by running models without forcings, and estimating historical temperatures using proxies. Do you not think the IPCC should reveal that little is known about internal variability?

      Regards,

      Richard

    • Yes Michael. deja vu all over again! :) H/T Yogi Berra

  42. I want to talk about a better way to determine the answer to the best of all questions — Why?
    My experience has taught me that scientists don’t always have the correct answer to a question right out of the box. They test it, they muse about it, they tell their friends about it, defend it….the scientific method is the best way to sharpen their pencils to get to the right answer.
    In sports, I have always said that the best, most interesting contest is determined not by the victor, but by the quality of the opposition. In fact, I have supported the idea that the renumeration of the competing teams should favor the loser, not the winner! I have found time after time that the value of a competition is enhanced by the quality of the losing team. It just makes the outcome more interesting and just better.
    I found that true in the corporate world as well. Many times a company will set up oposing teams to work on the same problem. The competition makes the outcome better. The Manhattan Project was strengthened in this way.
    Why would it not be true in science? The hammering of excellent questions from the oposing group could only make the leading group defend their position in a better way. In that way they would adjust their thinking to allow for occurances that they may not have otherwise thought of themselves.
    College level debate is conducted so that the oposing teams could offer alternative solutions – and then defend them to the opposition. the quality of the debate was often set by the losing team, with the victors only offering just enough to win, but not going too far.
    I find it telling that the AGW crowd has not offered any new substance to their arguements since….1993? Nothing new? Same thing expressed in a different way, propped up by some ‘new’ information. Or even, re-interpret the same data a different way to get the same result. How intellectually insulting! They won’t allow dissent, so there is no reason to offer bertter evidence. They win by default!
    And now, they combine AGW with Evolution to form a grand alliance (in the new hit show: “Wayward Pines”). And I liked the show!

    Jeff

    • “I found that true in the corporate world as well. Many times a company will set up oposing teams to work on the same problem. ”

      The problem is the “skeptics” have no team to field.
      They have no coach
      They have 2 old players,
      No bench
      and no draft picks.
      They dont even know the rules of the game.

      take something brutally simple:

      Global land temperatures.

      A huge repository of raw data exists ( ISTI)

      free and open.

      unadjusted.

      Team skeptic wont even look at it much less do their own damn science with it.

      Sir Rud could fund this.

      he could bring together a red team and blue team..

      ….. but skeptics are not interested in doing science..

      even if you give them the tools

      • I’m not sure adjusting old temperature data can be called science. The adjusted data can’t be compared to anything but itself. The real temperature in various times and places past is unknown and unknowable. Accuracy is unknown and low precision is unreachable.

      • I’m not sure adjusting old temperature data can be called science.

        1.. Do it any way you like and DEMONSTRATE that not adjusting
        gives you a better estimate.
        2. many physics discoveries started with bad data.
        3. Estimation is prediction. looks like science to everyone else.

        The adjusted data can’t be compared to anything but itself.

        1. Wrong.
        2. You can create an estimate with and without adjusting
        you can then validate which approach gives you answers
        closer to the truth.

        The real temperature in various times and places past is unknown and unknowable.
        1. This is a non falsifiable statement.

        Accuracy is unknown and low precision is unreachable.

        True I have no knowledge how much you weighed at birth
        It could have been 3 tons!!! after all its totally unknown.

      • You could also compare the adjusted temperature data to a stock market index, but that would be just as meaningless as comparing the adjusted to the unadjusted temperature data.

      • Don Monfort

        Mosher’s perspective on the climate science establishment has changed since the days when he was out promoting his Climategate expose:

        “I think one of the big, missing stories here is how the scientific publishing mechanism is corrupted. I mean, I think of “Global Warming” as kind of a religion, and what you see in the mails is how they construct the canon, of how they corrupt the journal publishing, to get the papers published what they WANT published, with the reviewers that they want reviewing it and the papers they don’t want published, they keep out.”

        Was that you, Steven? Did they quote you correctly? But now it’s the skeptics who are the anti-science stinkers. What changed, other than Muller putting your name on a paper published in that ridiculous journal and calling you a scientist? Stockholm Syndrome?

        Your preaching at skeptics to do their own damn science is getting tedious. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to recognize corruption. Remember?

      • You can repeat the Michelson–Morley experiment, go measure again the precession of Mercury, or hydrolyze water and observe if the volume of hydrogen is twice that of oxygen.

        But you can’t go back and measure the temperature somewhere at time 5/6/1900 5 PM ET.

      • DOn

        ‘“I think one of the big, missing stories here is how the scientific publishing mechanism is corrupted. I mean, I think of “Global Warming” as kind of a religion, and what you see in the mails is how they construct the canon, of how they corrupt the journal publishing, to get the papers published what they WANT published, with the reviewers that they want reviewing it and the papers they don’t want published, they keep out.”

        Yup. that was one of the big missing stories. It still happens.
        Knowing this in 2009, I still pressed on. what’s your excuse?

        Was that you, Steven? Did they quote you correctly?

        Yup. Thats me. In fact its explains perfectly what I continue to do.
        Do your own damn science. Publish your data and methods.
        If the official channels shut you down, find another way.

        But now it’s the skeptics who are the anti-science stinkers. What changed, other than Muller putting your name on a paper published in that ridiculous journal and calling you a scientist? Stockholm Syndrome?

        1. They have always been anti science stinkers.
        2. Nothing has changed in my disdain for the anti science
        right. Thats WHY in 2008 I identified as a luke warmer.

        Your preaching at skeptics to do their own damn science is getting tedious. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to recognize corruption. Remember?

        do your own damn science

      • Don Monfort

        Juggling, kriging and extrapolating the same old serially-adjusted temperature data is not advancing the science, Steven. It’s more like accounting, than science. Stop bragging. Do some useful science on the dubious strongly positive water feedback assumption and get back to us.

        My guess is that most skeptics are taxpayers and they are entitled to honest science from the freaking people that are hired to do the work. Spend some time yammering at those alarmist clowns on realclimate. They’ll give you about a minute, and then the boot.

      • Don Monfort,

        “Juggling, kriging and extrapolating the same old serially-adjusted temperature data is not advancing the science, Steven. It’s more like accounting, than science. Stop bragging. Do some useful science on the dubious strongly positive water feedback assumption and get back to us.”

        +100

      • Don Monfort

        Thanks, Mark. Your judgement is impeccable.

        I am just jerking his chain a little. He has gone too far in the wrong direction. I have always liked and respected, Mosher. He’s worth having around. I just wish he could be more reasonable, more willing to compromise and even-tempered, like me.

      • Don,

        I just wish he could be more reasonable, more willing to compromise and even-tempered, like me.

        I do enjoy when you illustrate that you have a sense of humour.

      • “Juggling, kriging and extrapolating the same old serially-adjusted temperature data is not advancing the science, Steven. It’s more like accounting, than science. Stop bragging. Do some useful science on the dubious strongly positive water feedback assumption and get back to us.”

        Funny, all those years on CA and WUWT when folks suggested that people should use the best methods from the science of spatial statistics, ie krigging, you were not there to suggest otherwise.

        part of the temperature series is MERE accounting.
        the rest is not. A spatial interpolation is a prediction.
        accountants dont predict.

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “take something brutally simple:

        Global land temperatures.

        A huge repository of raw data exists ( ISTI)

        free and open.

        unadjusted.

        Team skeptic wont even look at it much less do their own damn science with it.”

        A couple of points.
        First, your supposed “global land temperatures” are not actually “global land temperatures” at all, are they? Records of land temperatures do exist, but your lot studiously avoid examining them for some bizarre reason. They are called “ground” or “surface temperatures”. By meteorologists, anyway.

        Second, what is the point of averaging the air temperatures you use, anyway? It achieves nothing, and is no indicator of the future.

        Your “damn science” is nothing more than a “damn waste of time and effort”. It has no use, except to create employment for those with nothing better to do. Why would anybody want to look at your huge repository of useless alleged information? You have already done it, and achieved nothing. Why demand others participate in your folly?

      • I enjoy a graph or trend as much as the next punter. But since so much of the world’s min/max temp records result from how much cloud drifted in, drifted out or hung about on particular days at particular times of day, why try to wring more meaning from it all than it can possibly offer? Around here dry 1915 was the hottest year by recorded max, but stifling 1914, taking into account cloud and rain, may well have been the doozie.

        I don’t know why my part of NSW was so “hot” between 1910 and 1919, but there are enough readings from other areas to indicate something was going on temp wise in those years. It wasn’t just a lazy, drunken postmaster in one locale.

        But my region’s record is not its story, and even if we had its full climate story it would not tell the story of other regions, even within NSW. There’s just enough correlation to interest.

        It’s a bit like world horror year 1878. There’s enough correlation around the globe to interest (and disturb). It seems we had round-the-girth drought back then, with accompanying heat and famine. (When Kiwis are begging and bidding for water by the bucket, you have problems.)

        My interest in 1878 was sparked by freakishly high temp readings right on the coast at Newcastle which were not exceeded by nearby inland readings. Powerful inland winds dominating? When I checked old news I found that to be the case. Then I started checking on who suffered extreme drought right round the middle of the world in that period and it seems that, from Africa, through Asia to S America it really was a mid-global disaster.

        Why not try to get from the records the useful hints and clues they leave us? Conflation, graphs and stats often take away their resonance while reducing even further whatever limited accuracy they can offer.

      • “Global land temperatures.

        A huge repository of raw data exists ( ISTI)

        free and open.

        unadjusted.

        Team skeptic wont even look at it much less do their own damn science with it.

        Sir Rud could fund this.

        he could bring together a red team and blue team..

        ….. but skeptics are not interested in doing science..

        even if you give them the tools”

        Bullspit, you want people to confirm how you think it should be, and if they don’t they’re “wrong”.

      • richardswarthout

        Mosomoso

        “Why not try to get from the records the useful hints and clues they leave us? Conflation, graphs and stats often take away their resonance while reducing even further whatever limited accuracy they can offer.”

        I think you nailed it. Searching for answers in all the wrong places. I have found that this type of misguided problem solving is not rare in the business world. Don’t remember the details but it may be related to using metadata instead of analyzing the stuff at the floor. Would be a topic worth exploring.

        Cheers,

        Richard

      • catweazle666

        “….. but skeptics are not interested in doing science..”

        What are you scared of, Mosher?

      • Mosh somewhere along the way drank the koolaid.

      • Don Monfort | June 26, 2015 at 3:43 pm |
        Juggling, kriging and extrapolating the same old serially-adjusted temperature data is not advancing the science, Steven. It’s more like accounting, than science. Stop bragging. Do some useful science on the dubious strongly positive water feedback assumption and get back to us.

        My guess is that most skeptics are taxpayers and they are entitled to honest science from the freaking people that are hired to do the work. Spend some time yammering at those alarmist clowns on realclimate. They’ll give you about a minute, and then the boot.

        1. The global warming scare started in 1979 at a conference where two models – one close to right (ECS 2.0) and the other grossly wrong (ECS 4.0) were combined with a 0.5 error range to produce the 1.5-4.5 estimate for ECS.

        2. Since then the results of grossly wrong models have been used to justify mutating temperature data.

        3. The only valid study of the TCR (roughly 2/3rds of the ECS) at two locations measured a value of 0.2 W/m2 +/-0.06 W/m2 for 22 PPM of CO2. Applying the data to the logarithmic CO2 forcing function gives a forcing function constant of 3.462674 or 3.46. For the 1900 to 2015 CO2 increase of 295 to 400 PPM CO2 increase this computes to a 1.05 W/m2 forcing change since 1900.

        4. The post 1900 forcing change of around 4 W/m2 is 1/4 CO2, 1/2 Natural, and 1/4 CGAWG (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming).

        5. There are a number of anomalies in the temperature data (the growing separation of SH/NH temperatures and the difference from the satellite TLT data among them), that indicate there is something grossly wrong with the surface record at about the level of the CGAGW component. – 1 W/m2.

        6. The insistence of some in the climate community that a 1.05 W/m2 influence is the “Dominant cause of Temperature Change since 1900” and responsible for “110%” of the effect, is simply wrong – like their models and their adjustments.

      • “5. There are a number of anomalies in the temperature data (the growing separation of SH/NH temperatures and the difference from the satellite TLT data among them), that indicate there is something grossly wrong with the surface record at about the level of the CGAGW component. – 1 W/m2.”

        But it isn’t from the surface measurements, it’s from the post processing of the surface measurements. And I’m not even talking about the adjustments.

      • PA

        They were aware of warming decades before 1979. As an example here is an article from 1932 referencing warming events 20 years previously.

        —- —– —–
        “This 1932 article demonstrates that, unlike the modern era, the warming affected both poles whilst highlighting the continued retreat of the glaciers generally and in Greenland and Alaska specifically;

        http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting&searchLimits=

        “Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed. Sir James Ross…on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries. It might imply, unless it is offset by some increase of ice in another less explored part of the Antarctic, that the climate of the South Pole is changing and becoming warmer. The shrinkage of the Alpine glaciers of Europe is a well-known and carefully measured fact. Professor Buchanan, of Edinburgh, drew attention to it twenty years ago, and showed from old and accurate drawings of (many) that they were retreating rapidly. This led to the continuous measurement of the Swiss glaciers (and) examination of other glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, Greenland, Alaska, and elsewhere. Prom these measurements many geologists concluded that the northern part of the globe was still recovering from the last of its Ice Ages, of which the more southerly of its glaciers in Europe were a relic. If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary

        —– —– —–
        tonyb

  43. Judith Curry

    You opine: “…it is time for the IPCC to abandon their consensus seeking process…” predicated, I presume that these are “men” of good will. You obviously have personal connections with many of these people which forms your basis and opinion.

    I have no such luxury of personal contact. All I have is what they have written. The format of such writings I must admit, are mostly in an editorializing vein which means of course they are trying to influence the discussion one way or another. I realize that. And yet, there is a theme that I find most disturbing: the science is settled and the discussion needs to move on. The reference, of course is to the wavelength of CO2’s absorption and emission. And, of course, the discussion has not been directly related to that issue for a long time. Hence, “the science is settled” story is used to deflect the discussion away from the other and more unsettled issues, and more interesting BTW.

    Could you please provide a thumbnail sketch of those with whom you have had contact and some confidence? whom we could search and read their perspectives, science, and opinions?

    A top of the head blip would do.

    • That would be useful. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr would be one offhand. When one reads his public comment on the CCSP report about temperature records and the response from Tom Karl, I assume the famous Karl who uses canvas and wood buckets over ARGO and buoys, one can see the split between consensus activists and objective scientists. But Pielke no longer blogs and, aside from Dr Curry, we seem to be lacking objective scientists. Dr Held is polite, but Dr GAviin Schmidt won’t grace a factual discussion with face to face issues as per the mtg with Dr. Spencer or Dr. Christy. Others who blog would be interesting to identify.
      Scott

      • > Pielke [Sr.] no longer blogs and, aside from Dr Curry, we seem to be lacking objective scientists.

        The former does not consider himself as an “objective” scientist, if objectivity implies neutrality, e.g. “does not have well-entrenched positions”:

        “The assignment of individuals with well-entrenched positions (no matter how sincerely held) does not, in my view, provide an opportunity for a balanced, scientifically robust presentation by the AGU community on the issue of climate change.

        Does it not exclude the author of r-376?”

        Yes it does. :-)

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/assessing-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-58488

      • Dr. Pielke being honest in owning up to his biases and recusing himself is the highest form of objectivity, willy. We don’t see that on your side.

      • richardswarthout

        Don

        I was very impressed by a dialogue between Bjorn Stevens and Nic Lewis in April. Bjorn is in the consensus camp but does objective research, unconcerned when results might hurt the cause.

        Richard

      • I don’t expect Judith to recuse herself, willy. They took her chair. She has been attacked and she is fighting back. Burns you up, doesn’t it.

      • Don’t expect Bjorn S. to stray too far from the reservation, richard. I saw that discussion with Nic. Stevens wasn’t entirely honest.

  44. All the IPCC really does is summarise the literature.

    The IPCC should, and does, report a diversity of views and includes wide perspectives. eg the sensitivity range quotes a number of methods and includes many different estimates. The consensus defines the current envelope of the debate, it does not force compliance with it.

    The Review Editors ensure that all substantive comments received during review are given appropriate consideration by the author teams and ensure that genuine diversity in perspectives in the literature is reflected adequately in the report.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_review_process.pdf

    The consensus is merely a reflection of the literature, which is why it’s *very* unsurprising that Cook found 97% support in the literature for it. As the literature evolves, so, by definition does the consensus.

    All the whining about consensus really seems to be just not liking the fact that most of the science reported disagrees with a particular personal perspective. For instance, literature which supports <50% attribution of 1950-2010 warming to anthro is pretty much non-existent.

    • All the IPCC really does is put the necessary spin on the literature.

    • Citing that Cook 97% trash is a dead giveaway that you people are neither honest, nor capable of managing the environment and our energy resources.

      • …you people are neither honest…

        That is the bottom line. When the AGWists acknowledge the illegitimacy of the Cooked up garbage, then we will talk. Until then, it’s war. When the people finally realize the fraud that has been perpetrated and how much it has cost them, the warmunistas better listen for the sound of thunder.

      • Hell, yeah. Anyone who refuses to nail Mann, Cook and Lewandowsky to the ceiling by their ears as a warning to others doesn’t give a sh*t for science, they’re just playing politics.

      • Would you listen to arguments supporting AGW if it excluded Mann, Lewandowsky and Cook?

        I wouldn’t pick those three to star in my global warming musical.

        Is it ok if I use Loehle instead of Mann?

      • Bob,

        I do listen to other arguments supporting AGW, all the time.

        But I won’t take anyone seriously who refuses to drive those nails home. Would you take me seriously if I denied the greenhouse effect even existed? Tell me what you think of Cook and Lewandowsky.

      • Lewandowsky and Cook have points, but they are really not about the science.
        I am one of those that think the 97% is an understatement, have yet to read an article that clearly supports that the IPCC is overstating the problem.
        Even the criticism of Mann is small potatoes and doesn’t affect the overall conclusion of his work. His work does support the existence of a fair amount of natural variability.

      • I’m sorry Bob, but your determination to duck the question regarding Lewandowsky and Cook, and your defence of Mann (half-hearted as it is) tell me all I need to know.

      • So Jonathan,
        Can you cite one decent article that shows even one paper that would have made it into Lewandowsky’s survey, that’s critical of AGW?

        Tells me all I need to know.

        Like there is a plethora of article in climate journals that say we can burn all the carbon we want.

    • VTG, what the IPCC says it does, and what it really does, are not the same. Gave exhaustive AR4 examples for water vapor, cloud feedbacks, and observational sensitivity in the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth. There is frank selection bias.
      And the peer reviewed literature is itself selection biased. We know this is so from grant funding, from peer review (climategate email examples), and from nonsense like the difference between Marcott’s thesis and his Science paper (guest post A High Stick Foul) which Acience has still not delt with despite having acknowledged receiving the irrefutable evidence.
      Policy depends on ECS and TCR. Those depend on water vapor and cloud feedbacks in response to delta CO2. We know the models get those wrong (e.g. Tropical hot spot, cirrus iris effect,…). We know these feedbacks cannot be modeled directly thanks to two order of magnitude computional limitations (essay Models all the way down). They are parameterized. And we know the parameterization hindcasts three decades of rising temperature (CMIP5, 1975-2005) as if CO2 were the driver. Which is why CMIP5 missed the pause (they are lacking the natural variability component), and why their ECS are roughly twice what all the recent observational studies show. Get beyond the consensus that CO2 is a GHG, and all the observational facts show the rest of the IPCC consensus is just wrong. It is a Kuhnian scientific paradigm in the process of now being rapidly overturned by accumulating anomalous observations. And in age of the internet and ebooks, more overturned by writings outside the increasingly irrelevant, pal biased peer reviewed paper process–itself merely a veiled appeal to authority. BTW, ALL of the GAST rise from ~1920 to ~1950 was natural variation. Even IPCC said so. By what miracle did natural variation cease to exist from 1970-2000? The same miracle that allowed Mann to disappear the MWP in his infamous, peer reviewed yet thoroughly scientifically discredited hockey stick?

      • richardswarthout

        Rud

        In trying to understand the AR5 estimate of internal variability, it appears that a hockeystick-like paleo reconstruction had a role. Did you see that? I wrote a comment about it on SoD and can find some references if you’d like.

        Richard

      • RS, that would be interesting. I only tackled AR5 in depth where I knew AR4 was wrong or (deliberately) misleading based on the deep dive climate chaper in The Arts of Truth. Did not go into internal model variability much. Perhaps you could offer Judith a guest post.

      • verytallguy

        Hej  Rud,

         bit of a gish gallop there, obviously not possible to reply to so many.  The fundamental point remains; the IPCC merely reflects a consensus,  it doesn’t “speak with one voice”,  it reflects the voices out there.  The credible ones, anyway. 

      • veryTallGuy: bit of a gish gallop there, obviously not possible to reply to so many. The fundamental point remains; the IPCC merely reflects a consensus, it doesn’t “speak with one voice”, it reflects the voices out there. The credible ones, anyway.

        The scientific liabilities of the IPCC, documented by RIstvan and others, are real and serious. What the IPCC does, and what the IPCC says it does, are seriously in conflict.

      • verytallguy

        Matt,

        scientific liabilities

        Bit of a vague catch all there Matt.

        Reality bites though. Regardless of the many imperfections, the IPCC does a reasonable job of reflecting the scientific literature. You just don’t like the reality.

      • very tall guy: Bit of a vague catch all there Matt.

        We have discussed specifics repeatedly here at Climate Etc. Indeed, the post by Rudd Istvan than you declined to respond to meaningfully listed some of them.

      • ‘By what miracle did natural variation cease to exist
        from 1970-2000?’
        …and do miracles have a part ter play in science?

      • richardswarthout

        Rud

        I discovered an error in my statement; it is accurate regarding AR3 and AR4, however not AR5. The attribution authors determined that the paleoclimate reconstruction being used to estimate internal variability was deficient and abandoned their use, at least for that purpose. Appears they eventually saw the hockey-stick for what it was and no longer trusted any reconstructions.

        Sorry for misleading you.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        Rud

        A clarification: The attribution authors abandoned the use of all paleoclimate reconstructions in estimating internal variability.

        Richard

    • stevenreincarnated

      “Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. ”

      VTG, you need to go fix Wiki if the Cook paper showed that 97% believed that more than half of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic. They seem to think the 97% represented those that think man has contributed to global warming. That’s a fairly short hurdle since if you believe co2 is a ghg, or that the UHI effect is real, or that even the simple act of starting a fire would contribute to warming you would qualify. If that is your definition of a consensus position I would agree that it is both real and meaningless.

      • They don’t care about the fatal flaws in Cook et al. and the insignificance of the alleged results. They got their 97% and they are running with it. And they expect us to trust them. Clowns.

      • “The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even by this weaker definition the true consensus among scientific papers is not 97.1% as Cook claimed but only 0.3%.

        Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers that Cook examined explicitly stated that man caused the most warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting the consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

        They say Cooks paper got published by some journal no one had ever heard of and this paper was peer reviewed and published by in the respected Science and Education Journal now in it’s 21st year of publication. They also say a paper by Cook and Nuccitelli was rejected by Earth Systems Dynamics.

      • Per thomaswfuller2’s post earlier; sInce nobody was able to quantify the question of the Verheggen survey results indicating that 17.1% humans caused more than 100% of the warming I think it’s reasonable to exclude the outliers of the study based on an irrational exuberance quotient. So subtract 17.1 from 66% and we have a little less than 50%, now the debate gets really interesting.

      • Sorry, 17.1% of scientists believing humans caused MORE than 100% warming…

      • If you have natural cooling, natural warming, anthropogenic warming and anthropogenic cooling, you can have anthro warming being over 1.0

      • Thanks bob for the helping hand on methodology

      • sorry but it looked to me like you were having problems with basic arithmetic

      • Verheggen was about GHGs, and yes they can cause more than 100% when you realize that aerosols with a generally negative effect can bring it back to 100%. So, more than 100% is a realistic estimate for GHGs alone.

      • Don Monfort

        Well asserted, yimmy dee. What else do you have for us today?

      • 0.3 C per decade for AGW.
        Actual observed, 0.0 C. AGW% 1,000,000%
        Actual observed, 0.1C. AGW% 300%
        Actual observed, 0.3C. AGW% 100%
        Actual observed, 0.6 C. AGW% 50%
        The less it warms, the stronger AGW is. At some point it changes to the less it warms, the weaker AGW is. The math never changes. How can this be?

  45. Andy Revkin has got himself jammed up with the Climate Clique — Tony Dokoupil calls on him to pull the plug on the Dot Earth blog and Greg Laden labels him a denier.

    He has failed — somewhere — to “speak with one voice”.

  46. Curious George

    Two rules of progress of Natural Sciences:
    1. Ask Mother Nature.
    2. “Ask your peers” is not a way to a discovery.

  47. Right in a world without consensus based science, we would still believe the sun might revolve around the Earth, and that alchemy might be possible, and thousands of assorted ideas that we threw away a long time ago as wrong. Thanks for the reminder, Eddie

    • Ehhhh…..

      Perhaps you would do better with:

      • skeptics need to do their own damn science

      • skeptics need to do their own damn science

        Everyone needs to do their own damn science – that’s the way it works.

        If I run your experiment and achieve the same results, we increases confidence.

        If I achieve different results, we look at why.

        But I have to run the experiment.

      • Climate scientists first need to do some science. Then maybe there will be something to reproduce.

      • ==> “Everyone needs to do their own damn science – that’s the way it works.”

        That strike me as being very implausible as a way forward.

        What would work better as a strategy, IMO, is for people to work on creating communicative contexts where engagement can take place towards an end goal of ownership in policy outcomes as opposed to establishing group identity (and superiority).

        Interests versus positions. Stakeholder dialogue. Participatory democracy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

      • Mosher: skeptics need to do their own damn science

        Sure, and believers can finance their own damn projects. As long as scientists are requesting huge sums of government money, all taxpayers are entitled to review all of the evidence. If believers were content to commit their own time and money, there would be no public policy debate.

        Why just skeptics? Why not secondary and tertiary source believers like Al Gore and the Democrats in Congress and the presidency? Is it just on your authority alone that some people are permitted to read and think, and others not so permitted?

      • Mosher: money: mouth.

        Now you want to chew his money?

        Possibly you mean something like I wrote: believers can finance their own damn projects.

      • Here is the funny thing

        1. If you do a document where the Opposition is suppressed, and claim
        consensus, skeptics will say “Science isnt about consensus”
        2. if you do a document and there is no opposition, an claim consensus
        skeptics will say ” science isnt about consensus”
        3. If you do a document and INCLUDE the opposition,,,
        skeptics will say “There is no consensus” and tacticly approve of the notion that consensus has something to do with science.

      • “Sure, and believers can finance their own damn projects. ”

        I did for 3 years. what is your problem

      • Mosher: Here is the funny thing

        OK, so you can write jokes. I do not think it is a very funny joke, but it is obviously a joke.

        Quine’s joke (“Ontology recapitulates philology”) is both funny and profound. What oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed.

      • Mosher: I did for 3 years. what is your problem

        3 years is good. It is a start.

        Are you unaware of (or denying) a large international effort by believers to force a lot of other people to contribute?

      • “Are you unaware of (or denying) a large international effort by believers to force a lot of other people to contribute?”

        Money: mouth

        do your own damn science and stop changing the topic.

      • TE.
        money: mouth.

        It’s pretty easy, and you can do it for yourself if you want.

        When NASA or IPCC run jive about high end scenarios,
        I can examine the data for myself and see that there’s no evidence in the observed record which supports 10C per doubling models, or even 4C.

        When Hansen runs his mouth about ‘Worse than expected’ I know that temperature trends are less than the low end scenarios, including his infamous ( and incorrect ) 1988 testimony, as well as the failed IPCC AR4 predictions, I know ‘worse than expected’ isn’t correct.

        When Scientific American or skeptical science run stories about accelerating global warming, I know that temperature trends as well as greenhouse gas forcing trends are decelerating, not accelerating, so that’s wrong:
        tewatcher.webs.com/RF30.png

        When modelers or the IPCC make predictions about temperatures in the year 2100, I can reflect on observations of proxies and know that natural variability is large on the pentadal scale and increases out past the centennial scale, so one cannot distinguish what happens from natural variability.

        Now, I don’t make lake sediment measurements, or O18 samples, or the like.
        I am at the same consumer level of data as many, including many ‘scientists’ sitting in front of a computer display all day. But individuals examining the data can dispell gads of ‘consensus positions’ or at least positions held, sometimes shamelessly, by those claiming the consensus.

      • “When NASA or IPCC run jive about high end scenarios,
        I can examine the data for myself and see that there’s no evidence in the observed record which supports 10C per doubling models, or even 4C.”

        constructing strawmen is not doing your won science. its fooling yourself.
        Further, looking at the observed records wont tell you anything about future projections.

        I predict if the sun goes out that earth will cool by more than 20C.
        You can run a model and see this.
        Looking at the observed record will tell you nothing about this prediction.

        In short, we do future projections of conditions that have never existed,
        so looking at the record isnt going to tell you very much of interest.
        This is why no one will publish your “findings”

      • Further, looking at the observed records wont tell you anything about future projections.
        Observations are at least one bit of real experience which models are not.
        And if the theory is that GHGs induce warming, we have at least some measure of temperature and GHGs that has occurred.
        And it doesn’t support the extreme cases:

        I predict if the sun goes out that earth will cool by more than 20C.
        You can run a model and see this.

        Models are not verification they are theories which need to be verified by observations.

        Looking at the observed record will tell you nothing about this prediction.

        In short, we do future projections of conditions that have never existed,
        so looking at the record isnt going to tell you very much of interest.

        Future ‘projections’ are not validated until such events pass, so those things aren’t of much interest either, unless you can scare up lot’s of interest from the public or politicians that can use the issue somehow.

        But here’s a model run that can be assessed:

      • Turbulent Eddie | June 26, 2015 at 4:30 pm |
        Further, looking at the observed records wont tell you anything about future projections.
        Observations are at least one bit of real experience which models are not.
        And if the theory is that GHGs induce warming, we have at least some measure of temperature and GHGs that has occurred.
        And it doesn’t support the extreme cases:

        The IPCC TCR is twice the red curve, or 3 times the actual forcing.

        The IPCC says it is “unlikely” the ECS is less than 2°C. Assuming an ECS that is 150% of the actual TCR – or 1°C and given the 1.64°C and lower estimates from recent studies it is “unlikely” the IPCC knows what they are talking about.

      • Don Monfort

        TE, ask our excited friend, SM, if his friend, Nic Lewis, is doing science?

      • Mosher: Money: mouth

        do your own damn science and stop changing the topic.

        Those are pretty stupid comments: without the policy prescriptions by people demanding lots of other people’s money, this would be nothing by a quiet scientific study, like the age of the universe or how much cold, dark matter there really is. Policy and its cost and who is to pay are always the basic topic.

      • Mosher: I predict if the sun goes out that earth will cool by more than 20C.
        You can run a model and see this.
        Looking at the observed record will tell you nothing about this prediction.

        No, but it will help to inform the public about whether they ought to take your prediction seriously. For example, is it reasonable to condition policy on the assumption that the sun will go out? Why or why not? For example, if you assume that the sun is going to go out, should Californians reconsider their investments in solar farms?

        One thing about you (ad hominem comment coming!), once you commit to writing errant nonsense you redouble your efforts as the day goes by.

      • Meme: Worse than expected, Data: less than expected
        Meme: Accelerating, Data: Temps and RF Decelerating
        Meme: AGW more predictable with time, Data: natural climate less predictable

    • we would still believe the sun might revolve around the Earth
      Of course, it was individuals making observations and theories that advanced understanding, sometimes obstructed by the consensus.

      • How do we know they are valid theories or not unless the scientific community embraces them ? So if a significant number are still doing research on a theory would you cal it “discarded” even though some may think it should be? Is Alchemy still in this category of active research?

      • How do we know they are valid theories or not unless the scientific community embraces them ? So if a significant number are still doing research on a theory would you cal it “discarded” even though some may think it should be? Is Alchemy still in this category of active research?

        Wasn’t alchemy a consensus position?

        If the consensus was that there is no gravity, would you believe it?
        Why not?

      • richardswarthout

        Joseph

        How do we know they are valid theories or not.

        Do your own damn research!

        Mosher: Do I have to pay for using that phrase?

        Richard

  48. “… increasing knowledge alone is unlikely to overcome the political divide around climate change” [Hart et al., 2015]

    IMHO, that is incorrect. It proceeds at least in part from the belief that everything necessary for policy is already known with sufficient precision, so that the political divide is totally unrelated to the gaps in the knowledge. My reviews over the past years have changed my mind about policy because I have become aware of “cavities” and “liabilities”: poorly estimated physical constants; poorly estimated energy flows; poorly estimated theoretical constructs (e.g. “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling (or to DWLWIR increase)”, “natural variation”; obvious gaps in knowledge (the nature of ENSO and the other oceanic oscillations), changes in the size of the “iris effect”; predictions based on obviously inaccurate complex models; lack of knowledge of regional variation. As the gaps are filled and the estimates and models are improved, people will coalesce around policies that have much stronger support than what is proposed now based on “alarming” warnings about future “disasters”. It looks like movement away from the IPCC of 1990, toward less extreme claims.

    Now a keyword in the sentence is “alone”. Increasing knowledge must be disputed, replicated, and disseminated. So perhaps I should weaken my claim and say only (paraphrasing Pascal), that “increasing knowledge will be the most important factor to overcome the political divide around climate change”.

    I think the author also is using imprecise language. There isn’t much divide about the existence of “climate change”, the divides are about: (a) relative importance of anthropogenic CO2; (b) the balance of losses and gains: and (c) whether increased global mean temperature will increase or decrease global mean rainfall.

    On (c), I think the debate is whether the increase in rainfall will be closer to 3%/C or 7%/C.

  49. Judith,

    The absolute blizzard of climate change urgency continues unabated with the release of the “Lancet Report” yesterday. The pernicious duopoly of “no regrets” and “precautionary principle” represent a real threat to global economic development, capital formation and technology evolution.

    The only people (4 billion or so) to suffer will be those without clean water, reliable electricity, advanced telecommunications and political freedoms.

    Steve

  50. Speaking as a non-scientist (I don’t do scientific research, but I understand some of it) …

    Of course scientific consensus is important. It lets the rest of us know that you experts have looked at all the experty stuff and managed to convince each other. It tells me that more than one rational, intelligent, well-informed mind has reviewed the evidence and ended up convinced, at least more so than not. It tells me that many such rational well informed minds have done so. This tells me that there’s something there more worth believing than, say, the nutjob perpetual motion peddler….

    Speaking of which, you all still have a consensus on that, don’t you? Now, if you’re dispensing with consensus as a tool, well, what am I supposed to make of that now? Do I need to go learn all of thermodynamics, review the history of experiments, draw the conclusion -for-my-self before I dare say that this is a piece of scientific knowledge? Because, if you all really want that, okay, but there are a hell of a lot of scientific domains these days, and frankly, I’m busy trying to make a living. So, if you really want to dispense with “consensus”, please let me know, so that when someone asks me, I’ll go around saying, “Yeah, you know, I personally have not studied the topic well enough to rule it out. So, who am I to say that perpetual motion isn’t possible. As for quantum, I’ve never performed the double slit experiment, I’ve never sat down and tried to reason through all the possible explanations, so, no, I can’t say that anything about that either. Yeah, I know a bunch of well-informed, highly reasoned experts have done it…. but, you know, they are telling me now that I should NOT go with “consensus” scientific opinion, so, really what they think, the effort they’ve expended, none of that should influence what I believe is science or not. So, yeah, perpetual motion may be right.”

    So, if you want to abandon “consensus”, let me know, I will be non-committal on all my science comments going forward, because, frankly, I don’t have the time to study every branch of science in depth.

    And, BTW, take all that crap out of high-school science textbooks please, unless you’re willing to go through all the arguments for an against each and everything. Because, you know, as they stand now, they just spout consensus beliefs.

    • “It lets the rest of us know that you experts have looked at all the experty stuff and managed to convince each other.”

      No it doesn’t. Consensus just claims the people in a group agree with each other. Whether the science is valid or not is a separate question.

      Obviously.

      Andrew

  51. What better way to inspire confidence in a deliberative outcome than to show that 1) the position in question had been tested against a worthy alternative; 2) the minority felt that they had been heard, that they had been treated as deliberative equals; and 3) having been heard, even the minority agreed to let the position in question stand as the group’s.

    I have read that idea often, and I hope that it is true.

    For both Gulf War I and Gulf War II, commentators (including Sen Sam Nunn who voted against the authorization of GWI), said and wrote that, despite the acrimony of the debate in Congress, the Congress would rally to support the decision of the majority. Contrariwise, it was said of LBJ and Truman that they made mistakes by not having full congressional debates and votes on actual declarations of war before making major troop commitments. That’s in the realm of war, not peaceful policy, but the idea of a thorough thrashing out of all pros and cons has a long history in the US.

    • I agree. Relative to the politics surrounding climate, every Republican I know wants more science, not less. So how does that lead one to the lefts notion that Republicans are anti science? I do understand there’s great political capital in the label; but it’s not like the right is critical of Stephen Hawkings theoretical physics work or any other science. Perhaps the ad hominem label itself offers some clue as to why trust is virtually nonexistent relative to climate science specifically. Congress just increased the science budget, does that suggest anti science? In reference to Hawking again; it’s invigorating that he had emphatically argued that the Higgs boson would never be found, and equally invigorating that others unswayed looked for it anyway and found it. Dichotomy of thought leads to superior outcome.

  52. A. Science by experiment: ‘Because the results of this experiment say so.’
    B. Science by authority: ‘Because I said so!’
    C. Science by consensus: ‘Because we said so!’

    Kids like to provoke parents into saying B.

    But I’m still going with method A.

    • Curious George

      Steven: “Nothing has changed in my disdain for the anti science right.” Any disdain for Prof. Ehrlich, Prof. Oreskes, or Prof. Mann? Can you tell right from wrong? Who can tell left from right? (A tailor, of course. Or Prof. Haeckel, look him up.)

  53. The same idiot scientists who loudly proclaimed to all the world that the hockey stick was good science are the same idiot scientists who tell me that the consensus is right. Since they obviously have no idea what the hell they are talking about, only a fool would listen to them.

    • Stanton Brown,

      Unfortunately, it looks like the fools control the money. We’re all doomed, if that’s the case.

  54. > Show me where CO2 has, is, and will be the end of the world as we know it.

    Here you go:

    The central finding from the Commission’s work is that tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century. The key messages from the Commission are summarised below, accompanied by ten underlying recommendations to accelerate action in the next 5 years.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673615608546

    You’re welcome.

  55. I posted this on Judith’s latest thread, but it is worth repeating in the midst of some 400 replies.

    “The EPA’s Clean Power Plan has more flaws than a cheap diamond. Clearly, the EPA has no shame; and furthermore, they have no expertise to regulate the U.S. multi-trillion dollar electrical grid. None!

    The debate over scientific fraud and political science is at the height of importance right now, because the Harvard study seems to confirm the $50-200 billion future health benefits claimed by the Clean Power Plan. I can’t help but wonder if Harvard (and Science Magazine) will take responsibility for the latest emissions/health study printed under their imprimatur? Ultimately, the EPA, Harvard and the Driscoll/Schwartz study team should be required to disclose the internal communications between the groups, the math and science of the Driscaoll/Harvard Report and the $45 million that the EPA gave to the members of the study in grants. What Judith described as the “funding-induced bias.”

    I thought you would be interested in the following story from The Wall Street Journal.

    Scientific Fraud and Politics

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientific-fraud-and-politics-1433544688

    • Well, more transparency would be nice.

      $45 million is a massive amount of study money just to shuffle paper.

  56. By a strange coincidence, Climategate exposed the reality frightened world and religious leaders hid from the public for 500 years:

    http://junkscience.com/2015/06/28/you-are-known-by-your-allies-big-popey/comment-page-1/

  57. @Houghton: “… the peer review has helped ensure a high degree of consensus amongst authors and reviewers regarding the results presented”

    It is entirely consistent to expect temperature to be 10 °C hotter in 100 years while finding a statement like this to be unconvincing to any but the faithful.

    Climate scientists would be well advised to bring a logician or two on board. Based on this example it is clear that they have no conception of logical reasoning!

  58. Whether you’re a genuine skeptic or a fake one is completely irrelevant. The only question worth asking is whether you’re right or wrong about whether AGW is detrimental to the planet’s health. You can be as genuine as you want, but if you’re wrong then your genuineness is worth less than a Russian kopeck.

  59. … “the peer review has helped ensure a high degree of consensus ” [IPCC, John Houghton, 1990]

    “helped”. iow, the fundamantal objective of Houghton and the IPCC all along has been to manufacture consensus, not be objective and honest. Making it the textbook case of institutional confirmation bias.