Science held hostage in climate debate

These discussions were very good.

It is not just science that this post-modern concept applies to. In many aspects o fhuman endeavor today, individuals tend to decide what is truth based and what is not on their own biases and then seek only "evidence" to support that belief, often against evidence or persuasion to the contrary. Some psychologists have written about this growing human characteristic, especially in the U.S. When I was in school over a quarter-century ago, logic and reasoning were formally taught. And it should be a fundamental part of the scientific method today.

Article follows.

The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise. The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate. The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.

Attempts to resolve the arguments are plagued with problems, a lot of which are inherently insoluble. There are many aspects of the behaviour of the natural climate system and of human society that are unpredictable in principle, let alone in practice. But perhaps the biggest of the underlying problems, and it is common to both arguments since it inevitably exists when there is large unpredictability and uncertainty, is the presence of strong forces encouraging public overstatement and a belief in worst-case scenarios.

From the social and economic side of things, one might take much more notice of the global warming scare campaign if it were not so obvious that many of its most vociferous supporters have other agendas. There are those, for instance, who are concerned with preservation of the world’s resources of coal and oil for the benefit of future generations. There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.) There are those who, like the socialists of the 20th century, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations. There are those who regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of influence which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.

Of course there is nothing wrong, or at least not much that is wrong, with the ideals behind any of the above agendas except perhaps the last couple on the list. But the battles over them should be fought in the open and on their own merits rather than on the basis of a global warming crusade whose legitimacy is founded on still-doubtful science and on massive slabs of politically correct propaganda.

It is generally assumed that climate scientists themselves are more or less united on the matter and are not pushing a global warming barrow because of their interest in some other agenda. Certainly this is the story the activists would have us believe.

To the extent that there is such a thing as normal science, it relies upon accurate observations to verify its theories. Accurate is the operative word here. Climate research has to rely on spectacularly inaccurate data from information on Earth’s past climate. Even though there are vast amounts of atmospheric and oceanographic data to play with, together with lots of proxy information from tree rings and ice cores and corals and so on, abstracting a coherent story from it all is something of a statistical nightmare. It gives a whole new meaning to the old saying “lies, (*)(*)(*)(*) lies and statistics”.

Suffice it to say that climate science is an example of what Canadian educator Sue McGregor calls “post-normal science”, in which “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”. In such circumstances it is virtually impossible to avoid subconscious cherry-picking of data to suit the popular theory of the time. Even Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not immune from the problem. In their case they were of sufficient genius (and were sufficiently lucky!) for their theories ultimately to trump the inaccuracy of the observations they had selected. Other scientists are rarely so prescient or so lucky. In the modern era, the problem is compounded by the existence of vastly complex computer models that can be tuned, again more-or-less subconsciously, to yield the desired result. From theory to observation and back again – if we are not careful, the cherry-picking can go round and round in an endless, misleading loop.

But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.

There is little doubt that some players in the climate game – not a lot, but enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in general – have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science. The Climategate scandal of 2009, wherein thousands of emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, showed that certain senior members of the research community were, and presumably still are, quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the evidence for dangerous climate change. The emails showed as well that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma. The ways and means included the sacking of recalcitrant editors.

Whatever the reason, it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate research journals if they run against the tide of politically correct opinion. Which is why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things. Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by “real” scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.

As a consequence, there was a philosophy around the traps at the time to the effect that, if nations really wanted to do something drastic and expensive about global warming, then the sensible course would be to take only those actions which would also be worth doing for other reasons. Improving the efficiency of transport would be sensible for instance. Burying vast quantities of carbon from the smokestacks of power stations would not.

That philosophy soon got lost in the politics. It is mildly encouraging now, perhaps as a result of the Climategate scandal, that we are beginning to see a new generation of climate scientists look again with a properly jaundiced eye at the question of uncertainty and how it might be assessed.

It is a bit surprising that what seems to be a roughly 50/50 split of public opinion is not at all a reflection of the much vaunted consensus of the climate science community. Perhaps this says a lot for the commonsense of the person in the street. In any event, the complexity of the issue, and the vast scale of the resources required to solve the problem (if there is a problem), make it difficult for middle-ground argument to be heard.

It would seem important also that any political and economic action on the matter of global warming should be flexible enough to be changed, or indeed discarded, should there be a significant shift in scientific or public perception. In terms of practical politics, the government of the day needs to give itself future wiggle room by making it clear to everyone that it is indeed making decisions on the basis of a fluid balance of probabilities, rather than on what activists insist is a scientific and economic certainty.

http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#

 

Those who refuse to give acknowledgement to the study of science need to bump up their IQ (idiot quotient) from 38 to some number >85.

How small a mind must be to simply believe that EVERYTHING in the UNIVERSE was created by one of the ~300 recognized Gawds. That the centuries of scientific curiosity, study, discovery, etc., from many of the smartest humans to roam Earth, is just a bunch of hooey!

That no matter facts and truths and logic and common sense and rationale, all of it can be trumped by political bias, religious bias, special interest bias, personal bias, bias, bias, bias.

Just saying...

 

Jesus christ can you warmmongers stop and read for 5 seconds before engaginging in generica ad hom.

"Garth Paltridge is an emeritus professor with the University of Tasmania, a visiting fellow at the Research School of Biology at the Australian National University and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. He is the author of The Climate Caper: facts and fallacies of global warming, Connor Court, 2009. He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO division of atmospheric research.

The Australian Financial Review"

People wonder why this board is gong to hell.

 

These comments were very good.

It is a bit surprising that what seems to be a roughly 50/50 split of public opinion is not at all a reflection of the much vaunted consensus of the climate science community. Perhaps this says a lot for the commonsense of the person in the street. In any event, the complexity of the issue, and the vast scale of the resources required to solve the problem (if there is a problem), make it difficult for middle-ground argument to be heard.

It would seem important also that any political and economic action on the matter of global warming should be flexible enough to be changed, or indeed discarded, should there be a significant shift in scientific or public perception. In terms of practical politics, the government of the day needs to give itself future wiggle room by making it clear to everyone that it is indeed making decisions on the basis of a fluid balance of probabilities, rather than on what activists insist is a scientific and economic certainty.

 

Article removed for brevity.
Title of your article Science held hostage in climate debate.
Your emphasized words:
1) The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate.
No. Bloggers are not climate scientists; climate scientists generally acknowledge that the increase is big enough.

2) is the presence of strong forces encouraging public overstatement and a belief in worst-case scenarios.
Irrelevant. "strong forces" have not been shown to influence the science.

3) From the social and economic side of things, one might take much more notice of the global warming scare campaign if it were not so obvious that many of its most vociferous supporters have other agendas.
Irrelevant. "vociferous supporters" have not been shown to influence the conclusion of climate scientists.

4) There are those who, like the socialists of the 20th century, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations.
Irrelevant. "socialists of the 20th century" have not been shown to influence the conclusion of climate scientists.

5) The emails showed as well that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma.
These "senior members" have been found not guilty of any wrong doings by a number of investigations. Inhofe had promised an investigation for fraud but none was ever conducted and none of the scientists were ever charge. Every attempt made to charge these "senior members" with any wrongdoing has failed. To continue to imply that these "senior members" are guilty of any wrongdoing, IMO, is slander and libel.

After that I stopped wasting on this piece of propaganda.

 

While you're being snarky...please tell us what the ratio is of scientists who validate or not the concept of global climate change??

 

If we as supposedly intelligent people cannot place an enormous amount of respect and validation on the science community, then we are not intelligent people...

 

1. Skeptical scientist tells public: Don't trust those other scientists. {YAWN}.
2. Politicized scientist tells public: All those other scientists are politicized, but I'm not! {YAWN}.
3. Financial magazine publishes climate story devoid of actual science. {YAWN}.

Is there anything new here?

 

By allowing itself to be attached to the redistrbutionist agenda of the UN, science has damaged its credibility for decades to come.

 

Just one more thing politics destroys!

Actually, no one should be paying attention to anything pretending to be science when it is coupled with politics and religion. True science doesn't give a crap who the audience might be...

 

Throw out the "remedies" of increased taxation, increased regulation, and funnelling money through the uber-corrupt UN and maybe you can get some scientific discussion without politics.

But it sure feels like the "Ozone Hole" fiasco all over again.

 

What about the ozone hole was a fiasco?

 

Q. What about the ozone hole thing was a fiasco?

A. The US consumer was (collectively) fleeced for billions of dollars and after twenty years of this fleecing the alleged ozone hole has not changed a bit. Its area of coverage and concentrations have not changed at all. that leads one to believe that the scientists overlooked something.

That, sport is a scientific fiasco.

 

Once again you should understand the subject before regurgitating a right wing blog. Some science to help you learn:
First signs of ozone-hole recovery spotted

 

What wonderful cliches. But, I'm curious. Do you agree with the scientists who said smoking was good for you? Chesterfields were so soothing to your throat? Or, how about the scientists who are paid to appear in court and swear under oath that the sun is hot or cold depending on which of the case is paying them. Do you approve of the liberal thuggery evident in the AGW hysteria?

 

Improvement will take decades, you say?

OK. Its been two. No improvement so far.

The check is in the mail.

So like the UN.

 

did you miss the headline:
First signs of ozone-hole recovery spotted

 

A nameless man in a tv commercial wearing a white coat is not necessarily a scientist.

 

The difference between you and scientific study, is that science is always open-minded and accepting further discoveries and adjusting theories...while you however are closed-minded and righteous based on personal and political and religious ignorance.

You have no problem talking about scientists 75 years ago regarding cigarette smoking but you don't bother to mention the thousands of scientists, and million$/billion$ spent on research, who have been studying cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke and have given the public a wealth of information in order for people to make 'informed' decisions.

I firmly believe, unequivocally believe, that the Earth is warming and that this potential presents some challenges to mankind. And I absolutely believe mankind is exacerbating this warming trend. You will politicize this potential and get all righteous about it while smarter people will pay attention to the facts and data and question what proactive measures they 'might' need to take...

 

AGW, whether or not it has any scientific validity, has been transformed into a vehicle to transfer vast sums of money to the UN, and justify enormous increases in taxation and regulation.

Take away taxation, regulation and the UN and you might get a real discussion about science.

But "scientists" ally themselves with the advocates of regulation, taxation, and the UN and thus call their own work into question.

 

Science is far from open-minded. It never has been. Intellectuals hate to be proven wrong. Today we have universities turning out so many PhDs with each one trying to get a professorship. Your typical professorship will have over 1000 applicants. This scarcity of employment leads to much chicanery.

 

He did not state that "scientists" were open-minded; he stated that "science" is open-minded. There is a big difference.

 

Science like so many things is fundamentally the people behind it.

 

To be fair, if you can identify a 'scientist' who is a whore to government or the UN or to any special interest group...they are whores...not scientists! If a scientist murders someone are they a scientist or a murderer?

To be more fair, there are tens of thousands of scientists around the world working in myriad areas of research who are doing pure research sans the whoring! I watch and read scientific stuff all the time and give great respect and thought to their endeavors, but the second I might sense that the information being given is politically or whatever motivated, I move on. You and others should move on from your UN whores!

It is incorrect to stereotype scientists as you have above. Just as it is incorrect to stereotype anyone! It is also people's responsibility to act smarter than they do, to understand when they are being whored, and to move on to legitimate information...

 

Those practicing chicanery are risking all the time and money they spent on their education and being booted out of their profession. The great thing about science is it requires peer reviews in order to establish validity.

Everything I watch and read regarding the sciences, for many decades now, I have never felt that anyone believed they had all the answers or even the correct answers; they have what they have today which is subject to change in a nanosecond! If you pay attention to pure scientific study, since we know the answers to very little, there MUST always be room for new discoveries and information which conflicts with what we know today...this is a given!

I don't care about the 1000 applicants; I care about preserving the pure process of scientific study...