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"

 

[Brad1979]

zdas04,

"and more importantly no one is trying to take billions of dollars out of the economy to change the spin of a quark through political fiat."

This about sums it up. People are perfectly fine accepting expert opinion on almost everything unless it conflicts with their political beliefs. Thank you for admitting to that.

 

[TGS4]

Brad1979 - you were indeed fallacious by implying that we were incapable of having a learned opinion because we were not among the anointed Climate Scientists. Hence my sarcastic comment about Einstein (in case you didn't catch either the sarcasm or who that was referring too).

I think these 2 threads have pretty much proven that engineers don't know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to climate.

. Other than applying one of the above-noted logical fallacies, please do tell how you have come to this opinion. Would that be the engineers that support the consensus or those who disagree with the consensus?

Have you ever been trained in radiative heat transfer? If you were, you would understand that the entire premise of the greenhouse gas effect is purely a radiative heat transfer effect, due to specific absorption and re-radiative bands. How is that not climate? Who would you "trust" more to know about feedbacks in complicated systems: a climate scientist or an electrical/electronics engineer?

 

[zdas04]

Brad1979,
Are you being purposefully obnoxious. I did get interested in this subject when people started proposing carbon taxes. Is that a political belief? I would be surprised if a liberal was happy that a billion dollars has left the California economy this year on the alter of bad science. My point was I am fine accepting an expert opinion about things that do not have the potential to alter my standard of living in a hugely negative way. Before I will accept a reduction in my standard of living I'm going to look into the underlying assumptions. Sorry if you find that political. I find it self interest.

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"

 

[Brad1979]

TGS4,

You are capable of having any opinion you want. I don't think I implied otherwise. But it is no fallacy to point out the obvious fact that compared to somebody who researches the climate full time, the people on this forum don't know squat.


"Would that be the engineers that support the consensus or those who disagree with the consensus?"

Both. Being able to understand the basic mechanism behind the greenhouse effect is a lot different than understanding the climate. And I will choose a climate scientist over an engineer any day when it comes to the later.

 

[rb1957]

2dye4 ... "The hockey stick temp spike is valid" ... i think the concensus is that the hockey stick is fiction. and that's not just my opinion (i wouldn't give much for that either), that the result of research/analysis.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[moltenmetal]

Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if the authority appealed to is imaginary or not a true authority.

An overwhelming majority of the scientists actually qualified by training and experience to offer an opinion on the subject, are concerned about the risk of fossil CO2 emissions to the atmosphere on global climate. That these emissions are responsible for the near-doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the 1700s is settled science based on measurement, not modelling and supposition. That these emissions are also in the process of acidifying the upper strata of the earth's oceans is also not something that can be challenged.

The prevailing scientific opinion on a subject can persist despite compelling contrary evidence, but not forever and rarely for long. I'd charge the AGW deniers with a new logical fallacy that I've made up, which I call the "appeal to conspiracy". Their hypothesis seems to be that substantially all the people who make a living studying the climate are in cahoots, ignoring and falsifying both data and analysis of that data in aid of a self-serving political agenda.

I'm not going to prattle with David, as he's shown repeatedly over the years that his position on this subject is ideological and dogmatic rather than scientific. In my opinion he is not qualified to offer a credible opinion on the subject any more than I am, and I freely admit that I am not qualified to do so either. That his opinion, unlike mine, challenges the consensus of people who ARE qualified to offer a truly informed opinion on the subject makes his position very difficult to give any credence.

 

[PSE]

Statistics: The ability to believe in nothing with absolute confidence or certainty. Often used just "so far" as to show support for a position.

Bruce Youngman

http://www.dynamicsolutions-mi.com

 

[2dye4]

The hockey stick is valid.
Check here for many charts.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr

The first inclination of government on this issue was to just directly tax carbon emissions, it was only later that some thought a market oriented approach would be better.
The market approach allowed more flexibility.
1 A business could innovate and reduce their carbon emissions and sell the credits to others.
2 A business could emit more when they needed to.

The specific benefit of trading carbon credits is the revenue positive aspect that theoretically should spur innovation in carbon emission reduction.

Now if you would rather see this rolled back to a strict tax with no incentive to reduce beyond the baseline then write your congressman.

Not surprisingly i agree with Brad that Engineers are amatures in climate science and tend to be just a little arrogant.

How many of those questioning the science have read and understood any serious papers on the methods used.

http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-103.php

http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-104.php

http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/attachments/106181

Lets read them fully then discuss them here..

 

[rb1957]

but a different graph (at the same site shows something quite different) ...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti

and i was referring to the Mann hockey stick, which has been refuted.

and then there's carbon credits ... ok, fine it's possibly "better" than a tax 'cause businesses can try to reduce their output. however, where's the money going ? and why such under-developed countries have a carbon output allowance that they'll never use ? (ok, so they try to develop or some such) but where's the money going ? if it even gets to an under-developed country, i'm sure it won't benefit the poor working sods (but rather end up in some swiss bank a/c).

sorry but i disagree with the approach that you have to be an expert to have an opinion. in my mind that harkens back to my parent's opinion of medcial advice "do what the doctor says, he knows better"; these days i think there's a little more kick back "why should i do that ? what are my alternatives ?". i've done some reading on climate change and i don't think the case is proven (to any standard of proof) that burning fossil fuels is having a catastrophic effect of global climate. Mu opinoin of "global warming" is that it is a boogie man created to get people to do what some individuals see is the right thing ... to be more "green", to conserve our resources and be more efficient in using them. these are surely laudable goals, but the ends doesn't justify the means.

the "poster boy" for "global warming" was the Mann hockey stick, and this has been refuted; and surely you have to wonder why it was created, and how it passed peer review.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

Brad1979 - thank you very much for your truly insightful comment. Unfortunately, what you have described is not science, but a priesthood. According to you, only those ordained and anointed as Climate Scientists™ are worthy of even questioning the basic tenants of the faith. Sure, got it. So, do you consider yourself an acolyte, or merely a follower?

Which brings another interesting issue - what is climate? If, by virtue of my education and experience in radiative heat transfer, computational modelling/numerical method, basic physics, control systems, and meteorology, I am deemed to be unworthy to even question the consensus, who truly is? How about advanced degrees in Mathematics/Applied Mathematics, or maybe Astronomy and Physics, or perhaps even Condensed Matter Physics/Semiconductor Physics combined with Geology?

 

[zdas04]

MoltenMetal,
"Prattle with David"? "shown repeatedly over the years that his position on this subject is ideological and dogmatic rather than scientific"? "That his opinion, unlike mine, challenges the consensus of people who ARE qualified to offer a truly informed opinion on the subject makes his position very difficult to give any credence"? You've crossed a number of lines here, so let me join you on your side of the line.

I guess it is a good thing that you don't work for the American Petroleum Institute or the members of the now-defunct Western Climate Initiative since both organizations have paid me handsomely to express my dogmatic views on this subject officially into the records of the EPA and WCI you ignorant twit. Your "opinions" seem to have been gleaned from an extensive study of the words of Oprah and Katie Couric. I have been very consistent, maybe even dogmatic, in challenging the methodology used in support of the religion of AGW, methodology that I actually am something of an expert on. The methodology being used is much like trying to fix a vehicle with a chainsaw, the chainsaw really makes a terrible screw driver. Computer models really make a terrible basis for laws and regulations.

So please, don't prattle with me since I have heard what Oprah and Katie have to say on the subject and I am not convinced of their authority so I can't imagine it having much value second hand.

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"

 

[beej67]

Well, it looks like at least some scientists are willing to look at non-carbon effects mankind has on our environment:

http://www.voanews.com/content/global-water-20may13/1664546.html

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

I think you just proved moltenmetal's case...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[2dye4]

Having an opinion is good.
Knowing its limitation is priceless.

 

[rconnor]

Scientific “consensus”
There’s a lot of confusion regarding what exactly a consensus is. People seem to think (or wish to believe, in order to strengthen their viewpoint) that a “consensus” is a formed by a group people sitting around a table and voting on how they feel about a meeting agenda item. The scientific community didn’t wake up one day, wander into a meeting room and vote on whether they believed in the CAGW theory or not.

A scientific consensus is formed through the result of a compelling body of evidence that supports one theory over another. This body of evidence is formed through different, independent studies. As the amount of research/papers/data supporting the theory grows, so does the strength of the theory (for a nice look back on the history of climate science see this link. There are also challenges against the theory which are either rejected or accepted through further study; if accepted the theory is either revised to include the new information, if the challenges are minor, or dismissed entirely, if the challenges are robust enough or attack the fundamental tenets of the theory. The stronger the body of evidence is for the theory, the stronger the counter-arguments need to be in order to completely overturn it (*note: in the last thread I detailed what the fundamental tenets of the CAGW theory are and how it could be falsified, I won’t repeat it here but you are welcome to look at what I wrote). In most cases, given a sufficiently large body of evidence supporting the theory, a counter-argument must not just challenge the assertions of the theory but it must also provide an alternative, and improved, explanation for the mechanism that original theory dealt with (i.e. it hasn’t warmed in X years is a nice “sound-byte” but it provides no alternative explanation. It hasn’t warmed in X years because the sun was doing Y and when it was warming the sun was doing Z, and here’s my evidence and data and graphs and pretty pictures, is a valid counter-argument worthy of discussion and it has been and is being discussed).

Now, back to the consensus, as this body of evidence grows, the theory begins to gain support from the scientific community at large. By “consensus”, what you really mean is that the majority of the scientific community agrees with the theory based on the result of a growing, solid body of evidence.

What a consensus means
A Consensus reflects the strength of the body of evidence in a theory but it IS NOT evidence in it of itself. Appeals to the consensus as proof of the theory is not appropriate and I agree with many of you on this. I will discuss this more below.

The issue with the “consensus”?
I’m not sure I understand what the problem is here (nor do I think that some of you do), so I need to break it down into what I think your issues might be:
1) That there is no consensus?
2) That there is a consensus but the consensus is wrong?
3) That there is a consensus but it should not be used as an argument to prove the theory?
4) That a “consensus”, or maybe more accurately, “any consensus” in science is a problem because it leads to group think and “pal review”?

1) Hopefully I can dismiss this claim. It’s pretty evident that the body of research is large and acceptance of the theory in the scientific community is widespread. However, this is challenged repeatedly by people which makes other react by conducting studies demonstrating that there actually is one. In this regard, the “appeal” to consensus is not really an “appeal” but defending the fact that there actually is one. I have no issues with that nor do I think (or hope) any of you do.

2) Fine but how is it wrong? Again, it is fallacious to think that when you think you are attacking the “consensus” you are attacking the results of some poll; you are attacking the body of evidence of the theory. There is nothing wrong with that, it is healthy, it is welcome and it is science. However, you need to provide details as to why the body of evidence is wrong and why another theory more accurate describes what we are seeing. If your argument or counter-theory is shot down, it doesn’t mean that there is a conspiracy against your theory it just means that your evidence/theory was not as accurate as the current theory. The fact you think that is because this has become an emotionally, politically and economically charged debate. Non-experts on both sides of the debate have interwoven their feelings into the science and it makes it hard to look at any data with unbiased eyes. There is a good talk on this that you can find here and a good article here. Another great paper on how cultural cognition comes into play when looking at the data. This leads nicely into point 3...what’s the point of a consensus to the non-expert?


3) I agree that a consensus is not proof the consensus is correct. However, as stated many times, this consensus is not a vote, it’s the confidence in a body of evidence. That body of evidence does provide weight to the theory. That confidence in the body of evidence by experts is a powerful statement to non-experts. However, given the gravitas of the climate change debate, I don’t feel this is adequate and I, like you, don’t like it when people dismiss points purely because it goes against their viewpoint. I feel people need to do a better job understanding the data and forming their own opinions. However, this brings us back to the papers and talks that I provided in point #2; the bias filter of incoming data means that even when people seek out the information they can lead themselves astray or not detect bias that supports their bias. Does promoting a consensus help with that? No.

4) This one is an odd argument. As another person point out, the scientific method is empirical. We perform tests, we study the results and we make conclusions. Because science is empirical, we can’t be 100% certain that the conclusions are true, in an epistemological view, because we can’t perform the tests an infinite amount of times. Now, having said that, we are all confident, to the point of certain, that when I drop a rock on Earth, it’s not going to float up. However, we still need to refer to gravity as a theory (insert welcome to test, jump off a bridge joke here…but don’t worry, I’m not about to use this as a “case” for creationism). We have formed a consensus that the theory of gravity is true. Note that I’m not trying to compare the strength of the gravitational theory with the strength of the CAGW theory, obviously the former is much stronger. The point is, we form consensuses around all core theories; consensus is not the boogie-man of science, it’s part of science.

The examples given in the first post to discredit (I guess) consensuses are just silly anecdotes (but I guess the plural of anecdotes is “data” for some people).
- Astrology – this is like saying that most ancient Greeks believed that thunder was caused by Zeus therefore consensuses are wrong. What is your point? That primitive cultural attributed natural phenomenon to magic/gods, therefore the CAGW consensus is just as bad? Before science developed, everything was magic. As Steve Weinberg said, “science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God”. So are you honestly saying that CAGW is to modern era climate change, what Zeus was to ancient Greek thunder? At times you sound like it but you are just being intellectually disingenuous and purposefully inflammatory.
- Geocentrism – again you fall victim to one of the most common errors in the field of history, which is to fail to understand things as a product of their time. Ya, Geocentrism seems foolish in the satellite era but it took some darn smart people, given primitive experimental equipment, to correct that perception. The connection to CAGW is no-doubt that if their lack of experimental equipment lead to a false theory, it could be repeated today. However, you need to understand that in that era the lack of experimental equipment and fundamental physics meant that natural senses and intuition were required to develop theories and interpret data. More importantly, religion was so invasive in politics, society and science, that views that went against the religious dogma were punished by death, so Geocentrism held for longer than it should have because of this fear. Now, with the invention of more powerful microscopes and telescopes we understand things outside our normal scale of perception, with quantum mechanics we’ve learned to leave intuition at the door when examining nature and religion has lost his strangle hold on our world view, science is less these advancements have
- Holocaust – I’m not going to dignify this with a rebuttal, it has nothing to do with CAGW or your point; again, it’s just intellectually disingenuous and purposefully inflammatory. Last post it was the Inquisition, this time you’ve up the ante.


As to the (continued) assertion (without any evidence…) that there is a conspiracy within the scientific community that blocks all research and papers against the CAGW theory or that scientists are crucified by the scientific community for speaking out against the CAGW theory, you need to provide more than just an emotionally charged statement (remind me what belief without evidence is?). I will agree and sympathize that there are non-experts that will blindly reject a counter-theory (it bugs me just as much as it bugs you) but that’s not what the scientific community/peer review process, at large, is doing. Just because a paper from a popular blogger can’t get published isn’t because it can’t get through “pal review”, it’s because it has technical gaps or does not provide new insights into the field. Some have asked why the percentage of papers supporting the CAGW theory isn’t 100%, well it’s because papers that go against the theory and are technical sound still get published. If you disagree, we can have a rational discussion about it without superfluous references to Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. For example, you could start off with something like, “there is absolutely “pal review” in the scientific community; look at the Climate Research journal from 1997 to 2003 with the editor Chris de Freitas”.

Wrapping things up (TL;DR)
- The majority of the scientific community, especially those in the field of climate science, agree with the CAGW theory. This alone doesn’t mean that much but it’s not that debatable.
- If your issue with the consensus is that you think it supports a false theory, fine, the discussion needs to transition back to evidence/counter-evidence.
- I agree that the fact there is a consensus is not proof the consensus is true. There’s a lot of evidence out there that supports the theory and it’s better to point to that, then a consensus, as justification for an opinion. Again, the discussion should transition back to evidence/counter-evidence.
- Consensuses are not in
- I’m getting really tired of silly anecdotes relating this discussion with the Inquisition, the Holocaust and other horrific acts in human history. If you want to discuss a bias in the scientific community or the peer review process, then let’s have a rational discussion.

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
Did you read my post or just extract the odd word here and there? There was a scientific consensus that geocentrism was a valid theory, there seems to be a historical consensus on that observation, that historical consensus may be wrong, but I have no reason to refute it. I don't care if the consensus on geocentrism was right or wrong. I don't care about the "times". I merely stated that there was a consensus and that people with alternate views were harmed by the priests and scientists lining up to refute the "deniers". An anecdote, not intended as data, intended to illuminate the current situation. Big difference.

As to the ancient Greeks believing that Zeus caused thunder, that is actually another good example of a consensus being at odds with later theories. There are many more examples available.

The point of my original post and the point of this thread, if there is one, is that consensus does not ensure that a theory is in line with the facts. It also does not ensure that the theory is not in line with the facts, but when people tell me that I must be full of crap because I disagree with the consensus of people "qualified" to have an opinion I get tense. When you tell me that a computer modeler sees no problem in doing a peer review of a scholarly article that uses nothing but computer models to "prove" his thesis I have to call BS.

As to the rest of your points, I'll leave them to others to address, I'm tired.

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]

rconnor - one of the more well thought out posts. In a manner of speaking, I believe that we are coming to an agreement on this particular aspect of the topic. I have no disagreement with the data respecting the number of papers accepting AGW. I am glad that you agree that consensus on its own does not imply truth. I also think that we can agree that the purpose of the Cook et al (2013) paper was to indicate otherwise. I also agree that we should focus on the science.

Regarding your 4 points:
1) I am curious to know the actual number of papers (that haven't been subsequently refuted) that explicitly endorse any one of the four pillars of the AGW hypothesis that I laid out earlier. And compare that o the actual number of papers that differ. Specifics matter in this discussion, to. For example, a paper showing a sensitivity of 1.2°C/doubling CO2 is very different from one showing 3°C/doubling CO2. What is the "consensus"? Are the explanations sufficient to explain ALL of the natural and anthropogenic variations, including prior ice ages? Is there truly a consensus that warming is "bad"? Again, the answer may be in the degree (pun intended).

2) Fair enough. But if questioning the science is right and proper, why the overwhelming desire to shut the debate down - "the science is settled"?

3) Agreed.

4) Just out of curiosity, how many papers have you written/published and reviewed? I used to be big believer in the power of peer review. However (and completely independent from the climate science issues), lately I have become more and more cynical of the entire process. This cynicism was furthered by the Climategate e-mails - "I'll keep that paper out (of the IPCC report) if I have to redefine what peer-reviewed means" - as well as efforts to have editors fired who published opposing viewpoints' papers. These aren't conspiracy theories - these are actual words written by actual people, depicting actual events.

 

[2dye4]

twenty stars to rconner for a very very well though out and written post.

If we all read and ponder this post the discussion should be more productive.

 

[TenPenny]

All of that discussion of 'consensus' is great, except that, once governmental and quasi-governmental agencies are involved, some of the studies that appear are not studies, they are summaries of existing studies, so counting them as part of the consensus is an incestuous move, and completely distorts the whole exercise.

So much of the literature on climate change is simply summarizing and reviewing other people's studies and reports that it's not simple to actually find the scientific research.

 

[debodine]

People are people, regardless of occupation. Many people today who castigate a CEO for maximising profit for their company will assume that if the government takes that profit and allows politicians to spend it, it will be spent more wisely and fairly than the CEO would. Many people assume those in government service are somehow less flawed than those in corporate industry, even though the leaders of both went to the same schools, joined the same fraternities, have the same networks and carry the same human flaws.

Scientists are human too. Thus scientists are JUST as likely to falsify data or mislead the public about experiments that didn't reach the "correct" result as any government bureaucrat is to hide policy failures to stay in office and any CEO is to misuse company funds for personal profit. Scientists also fall for the herd effect just as do politicians and CEO's too. The real answer is to follow the money. Who pays the bills?

Scientists will skew results to keep the money flowing just like politicians will skew results to buy votes and CEO's will skew results to earn bonuses, all to maintain or increase their access to money, power and/or sex...the three main drivers of human effort. Occasionally a scientist will stick their neck out for the truth as will the occasional politician or CEO, but they are very rare, and will almost always be persecuted rather than encouraged.

My point is I don't give a d**n about consensus. If a given theory does not yet allow an engineer to build something that works, that theory is too immmature to allow politicians to publicly fund "fixes". If an engineer can build something that works based on the theory, then there might possibly be some value to that theory. Otherwise spending billions to do anything is stupid except for possibly funding more research. In fact the more members of a given culture group that "agree" among themselves about any theory, the more likely I am to assume they are lying for profit. And if any politicians are within a hundred miles of the "consensus", then I KNOW they are lying for profit.