Consensus Science 43

[zdas04]

We hear a lot right now that "97% of climate scientist agree that climate change is human caused". Always 97%. Ten different "independent" studies all find 97% of the climate scientists agree. I've done experiments with a far narrower band of uncertainty than a poll of scientists and gotten a range of answers that mostly fell within the error band of the instrument being used. Polls of people tend to have an error band upwards of +/-5%, but these studies keep finding 97%. An independent study in Michigan looked at 1200 peer-reviewed papers and contacted the authors and found that 97% agreed. In East Anglica an independent evaluation found the same thing. In Pittsburgh, still 97%. And on. And on.

If we go back into history we find that in the 1500's approximately 97% of the scientists vilified Johannes Kepler for applying the tools of physics (a branch of "natural philosophy") to astronomy (a branch of mathematics within liberal arts). This work was widely reviled and the giants of the time like Tycho Brahe (who had been his mentor) refused to even consider his heresy when first published. 97% of the scientists accepted Astrology as science and rejected astronomy. Consensus is simply not proof of anything.

Tycho Brahe published extensively on "Geocentrism". 97% of the contemporary scientists agreed. Copernicus and Kepler were reviled for the concept of heliocentrism at the time. Today's consensus is that the sun doesn't really revolve around the earth. Bet those 97% would be embarrassed that today's consensus is that the sun is moving in space and that the earth is revolving around it. Galileo was forced to spend much of his life under house arrest after the Inquisition found him "vehemently suspect of heresy" for supporting this theory. The consensus was against him.

97% of the worlds "intellectuals" once embraced the horror of eugenics. To the point where scholarly texts were cited in support of the morality of the Nazi death camps.

These are vivid examples of possible errors in "consensus science". There are many others. Today 97% of physicists find cold fusion to be a hoax. The best of them say that because it thus far has not been presented in a repeatable, verifiable protocol--fair assessment. The worst of them say it is "impossible" and turn their backs. I have a great deal of confidence that one day, an individual will develop that "repeatable, verifiable" protocol and the world will have control of fusion in some form, maybe even cold fusion. This proof will come from the mind of an individual, not from some stinking "consensus". Consensus is stagnation. Consensus is generating a representation of pi to a few thousand more decimal places.

That leads me back to "Climate Science". I could say that the "peers" who do "peer review" reject any paper with a thesis outside of the consensus, so interviewing "published climate scientists" is kind of a study in masturbation. I could say that the "proof" of AGW is bundled in self-fulfilling prophesies that are very reminiscent of the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes" where everyone complemented the Emperor on his garments while he was parading naked until a child disagreed with the consensus and shouted that the Emperor was actually without clothing.

AGW us a theory based on an hypotheses. Nothing wrong with that. All scientific advances in the history of mankind have started with an hypotheses. Then they developed into theories that could be tested. Tests started out crude to show gross-level indications of the value of the theory. Over time the tests became more refined and allowed subtle evaluations and the new tests either supported (not proved) the theory or disproved it. We skipped a few of those steps with AGW. The hypotheses was postulated that certain gases seemed to be long-lived in the atmosphere and that these gases tended to insulate the heat on the earth from radiating into space. Very crude small scale experiments were designed that did not disprove the hypotheses. The next step should have been to larger scale, more subtle experiments, but instead we jumped to computational fluid dynamics to build climate models. Of course, without any physical controls, the models supported the hypotheses (it couldn't do anything else, a model can't be anything more than a reflection of the mind of its author). Things like urban heating (the so-called "heat island effect") and ocean currents couldn't be reconciled in the models so they became fudge factors that could be tweaked to force the models into compliance with the theory. By this time the media had latched onto this sound-byte theory and were stirring up fear and superstition among the masses. That led to government funding of climate science at unprecedented levels. After a few years of this ocean of funding going exclusively to people who showed results that seemed to be in support of the consensus hypotheses, people who's work did not support the hypotheses didn't get published anymore. They failed to get tenure. They found other ways to make a living. They left the 97%.

The only thing that I find less capable of predicting the future than computer models is polls of human beings. The only thing that I'm certain of is that some distant future historian (say in the year 2513) will look at this period in human history and write a footnote that one side or the other in this discussion was so obviously wrong headed that it is amazing that the race survived. One side says that the earth is warming and that actions by mankind both caused the warming and can reverse it via their actions. The other side says the climate is changing, the climate has always changed, and the climate will always change and the causes and effects have not been proven, nor are those causes and effects particularly relevant (because if the change is not one thing then it must be some other thing, i.e., if mankind isn't causing the change then it might be cosmic rays, sunspots, or volcanism).

My Engineering mentor once told me that a bit of work that I had done was very much like "lacquering a turd, you've made it all pretty and shiny, gotten rid of the worst of the odor, but it is still a piece of shit". I contend that the vast majority of work in climate science is exactly the same category of effort. There are no circumstances where I will accept a computer model as "proof" of anything. I use computer models to help me predict the outcome of experiments, not in lieu of experimentation.





David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

Regarding "proof"...

If I were a warmist, as opposed to a skeptic, I would be taking the following approach:

It is true that proof to 100% or even five (or more) 9's can never be positively demonstrated. However, because this is not an academic exercise, but something upon which the future of humankind depends, perhaps a different burden of "proof" is required. In criminal law, the burden level is beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil law, the burden level is balance of probabilities. As a warmist, I would submit that the civil law burden has been met, and that should be sufficient for action.

As a skeptic, I would agree that the criminal burden of proof has definitely not been achieved - even the argumentum ad populum of consensus at the 97% has ceded that ground. As far as the civil law burden, I would argue that such a burden has not yet been achieved - due to the lack of factual understanding of the natural cycles: the null hypothesis.

To those who completely agree with the consensus - why do you keep applying an obvious logical fallacy to support your side? If the science were so good and solid, why fall back to such indefensible positions?

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

 

[TenPenny]

Loaded question, that.

100% human caused, or 10%? 5%? 1%?

And caused entirely by carbon? Or caused by other factors of which carbon is just one piece of the larger puzzle?

And what percentage of climate scientists think Al Gore Cap and Trade will stop climate change?

Good question, but I was told by some of the experts on this forum that it is impossible for human activity to have ANY effect on the global climate.

So there you have it. Completely impossible for any human endeavour to have even the slightest impact on climate.

Case closed.

 

[77JQX]

So if consensus is bad, what's the alternative?

 

[TGS4]

No one said that consensus was bad, just that it is a logical fallacy to presume that because there is consensus on a particular topic that the truth is "known".

 

[beej67]

Good question, but I was told by some of the experts on this forum that it is impossible for human activity to have ANY effect on the global climate.

I think statements that mankind has definitively zero effect on our climate are probably just as improbable as statements that carbon "cap and trade" would have any effect on the climate.

Smart people take the wide view, and be careful not to jump to conclusions. "Mankind probably has some affect on our environment, therefore we must pass carbon cap and trade" is a very sloppy conclusion. There are many intermediary steps in that chain of logic, each of which needs to be looked at critically. The lack of critical thinking on the policy side of the climate equation is alarming, and speaks to who's actually pulling the strings on environmental policy. (not scientists)

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TomDOT]

In Science, we should both have consensus (hypotheses repeatedly tested) and challenging of the consensus. Consensus is a good snapshot of "where we are" - challenging consensus is how we move to a better understanding of the universe.

Sometimes it is merely refinement

"The earth is flat" worked pretty well on a local level for a looong time.
"The earth is a sphere" worked well at the next level (circumnavigation)
"The earth is an oblate spheroid" was the next refinement
"The earth is an oblate spheroid with a moving tidal bulge" was the next.

 

[cranky108]

Are we talking about science group think, good directed question asking, or creative statistic math? Either way I doubt 97% of any crowd will come to the same conclusion without help.

And all this from the man who created the internet.

 

[2dye4]

So the MMGW consensus has taken a beating here.

Lets hear from the opposing consensus, the group of scientist with a coherent position challenging the 97%.

 

[berkshire]

I just have a funny feeling that there are more than 3% of scientists challenging the 97%, we just do not hear from them.
B.E.

 

[JJPellin]

We do not say that it is true because there is consensus. We say that there is consensus because it is true. The experts on the subject agree because the evidence is compelling. I see nothing here that suggests otherwise.

Johnny Pellin

 

[TGS4]

JJPellin - if it is true, then why not 100%? Oh right - because there is at least reasonable doubt. Heck, we don't even understand the why and how of clouds. What we could fill a large beaker. What we don't know could fill the ocean (literally. We have only been measuring deep ocean temperatures for a little over 10 years - ARGO - to say that we know much about how the ocean works is unbelievable arrogance).

That you see nothing here that suggests otherwise means that your eyes are closed, unwilling to look. Sad, yet typical.

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
I started this thread with a rant AGAINST consensus science. I am unwilling to even look for a consensus on this subject. I operate my Engineering practice on the premise that something is true because it is true, not because I've been told it is true. The (few) things that I absolutely accept as best practices are things that many of my clients have rejected because of consensus Engineering holds a contrary view. Sometimes I convince them that the consensus is wrong and I'm right. Other times I do not convince them and they call me again in a few years asking why the consensus Engineering has provided unacceptable results and is it too late to fix the dumb. I make a very good living as a contrarian. I am not going to pick up a single pinky to try to prove any consensus.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[racookpe1978]

Stop. Stop. Stop.

The "97% consensus science agrees" comes from ONE specific "study" that was specifically loaded to specifically create just THAT SPECIFIC TALKING POINT.

Approximately 3500 surveys were sent out to a variety of "scientists" by one researcher (funded by the government) after government approval of his government grant request after his government grant/funding requests were reviewed by government grant people. (Starting to get the picture?)

Of these 3500 surveys, approximately 1100 were returned. It was NOT a scientifically selected sample, nor a random sample of qualified scientists, nor a 100% sample of specific experts or scientists in any single specific field. These 1100 replies were self-selected, and thus their replies were self-selected and, by definition, biased.

There were 5 questions in the survey.

Only 2 of the 5 were reported:
"Is the earth warmer now than in the past?"
"Is mankind responsible for some of that warming"?

1. (Not defining "the past" is important, several times the earth has been much, much warmer than now. We ARE heating up from the Little Ice Age of 1650, and so "global warming" cannot be denied by anybody!


2. Not defining "what percent of the warming" is due to human influence, and how much is natural warming - from ANY cause - is important. If humans are responsible for 3% of one global warming-contributing gas, and that gas is responsible for 1% of the global warming, YES, we are responsible for PART of the current warming.

If humans are responsible for 95% of the current warming, then the answer is ALSO "yes".

We do NOT know what the other 3 questions were. We do NOT know what the repies were to those questions.

From the replies to these 2 questions, the "researcher" ranked the replies by the number of papers written by the person writing back, and by how often the scientist in question had written papers ("official" peer-reviewed papers only - Again, a bias because the CAGW community has deliberately fired editors of scientific journals who disgree with their CAGW religion. In hundreds of other cases, the CAGW community has delayed critical papers, rejected papers critical if global warming dogma, and has rejected journals (boycotted) that have published papers critical of the CAGW religion. In all of those cases, that a paper critical of global warming is delayed or ignored or rejected reduces the self-selection criteria and ranking of the person relying to this survey!

Once all of the replies were ranked, ONLY those relies from people employed BY the government, or funded directly BY the government were selected.

Of these 77 "scientists", 75 said "Yes, the global is warming."
Of these 77 "scientists", 75 said "And mankind is responsible for some or all of that warming."

Now ..... What was actual percent replying "Yes, humans are responsible"?

75 of 3500 who were asked?
75 of 1100 who replied?
Or 75 of 77 who are paid BY the taxes that can ONLY COME if the government convinces 51% of their low-information voters that the government needs 1.4 3 trillion in new taxes from global warming fees and carbon-trading?

 

[racookpe1978]

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

has been awarded "Best Science Blog" for several years in a row now.

It has now over 1,035,000 replies and comments - passing the 1,000,000 comment mark the first days of April 2013. Almost all of its articles and discussions are about global warming (or the lack of it for the past 16 years as the world has cooled), or of scientific errors and research and corrections and - of course - the supposed "consensus" about CAGW.

Today, in the thread below, this 97% claim is (again) falsely claimed, promptly analyzed, and just as promptly, debunked. Again.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ording-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

(I'm a moderator, reader, writer, and poster over on that forum as well.)

 

[2dye4]

Challenging the consensus is fine, IF you have a body of scientific work with which to do so..

Challenging the consensus based on the fact that it 'might' be wrong is irrational.

Again we make decisions to invest much of our resources on only probable calamities like I said before concerning decisions to go to war. To tackle possible but not certain calamities.

Why should climate catastrophes be any different??

And remember all that is being asked is to conserve a limited resource.

I do agree that the 97% statistic is fairly silly, but I also believe that among the qualified scientists there is a 'consensus' that we are warming the planet and serious consequences are in the making.

 

[DRWeig]

Any time I see that vast-majority statistic, it reminds me of the old Crest toothpaste commercials. Four out of five dentists prefer Crest.

I always wanted to talk to that fifth dentist and see why he thought differently.

I do believe that the consensus group carries so much weight that it suppresses the three percent's dissemination of opinion. Global warming is an exception.

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[beej67]

Only 2 of the 5 were reported:
"Is the earth warmer now than in the past?"
"Is mankind responsible for some of that warming"?

Aha.

So if I believed mankind were responsible for 1% of the warming we've seen since the Little *Ice Age*, did not believe carbon emissions had anything to do with that warming, and opposed with full gusto any attempt to pass Carbon Cap and Trade regulations, I would still show up as a "yes" in that study .. one of the 97%.

Gotcha.

That's basically what I was asking above.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

Why do you need a "body of scientific work" to challenge a consensus? I am qualified to look at the methodology of the current processes and see that the support for the consensus is computer models and adulterated data with an (un)healthy dose of media hysteria and government intervention. I really don't need anyone to tell me that models cannot prove anything or even be used to support a proof. I really don't need anyone to tell me that if the raw data has been "corrected" prior to first storage then it really doesn't prove anything or add value in support of a proof. I really don't need anyone to tell me that all the world's mainstream media claiming that an hypotheses has been "settled" doesn't make it so.

This thread is about consensus science. It is about "proofs" that rely on the dubious "fact" that there is a consensus of scientists that believe the hypotheses. I don't care who "believes" what (I find that beliefs are the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data). What can you prove, what data has been collected and protected, what methods/tools did you use to develop that proof, are those tools appropriate to the task, and would a reasonably competent person be able to apply those tools to that data and reach the same conclusion? If not, then it isn't science, it is conjecture.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TGS4]

Challenging the consensus based on the fact that it 'might' be wrong is irrational.

Nope - that is science in its most raw form. Everything is challenged, nothing is sacred.

I do agree that the 97% statistic is fairly silly, but I also believe that among the qualified scientists there is a 'consensus' that we are warming the planet and serious consequences are in the making.

Well, we're starting to make some progress. At least we all seem to agree that the 97% statistic is silly. Now, quantify this supposed consensus: how much have we warmed the planet (be sure to differentiate between natural warming and anthropogenic warming), how much will the planet be warmed (specifics here, too - testable hypotheses are another foundation of science), and quantify those consequences(who, what, when, where, and how).

 

[TenPenny]

Cap and trade is simply another method by which Wall St can make money by buying and selling paper that is deemed to have an underlying value by someone.

The reason that it is a popular solution is because the Wall St people want their bonuses, and will make everyone believe it is a solution.

It's a tremendous sham, but some will stand to make a lot of money out of thin air.

That said, I do believe we have some obligation to mitigate the damage to the environment that our society causes.