Monday
Apr052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill What is the consensus based upon?
Apr 5, 2010 Climate: IPCC The FT changes tune slightly and admits there might be a tiny problem with climatology. The walls are not exactly tumbling down yet, but it may be that the Pink'un is struggling to hold the line.
Interestingly, they tell us that the IPCC needs to "give weight to all the evidence, not just the consensus". This appears to be an admission that the "consensus" is (a) not a consensus and (b) is based on a partial selection of the available evidence.
I agree with them.
I think, however, that the FT should expect a campaign of criticism.
Reader Comments (34)
I've always understood the "consensus" to be that climate changes. Well, duh. You can add the sceptics to the signatories of that theory. But, despite the IPCC et al alluding to it, I've never seen anything substantive regarding a broad scientific consensus supporting the hypothesis that either climate change is primarily man-made, or that it is catastrophic in nature. Outside of climate science, where a scientific consensus would amount to the academic world's equivalent of "I know it's a fact, cuz this bloke in the pub told me..." there's nothing there. It's a fallacy.
Could anyone put a bit of the article on here (is it legal?) - I don't want to sign up to the FT.
Also I just re-read the Times leading article from last November when the organ called sceptics 'village idiots'. Has anyone heard a word of apology from them?
The three points of advice given to the climate alarmists in the FT piece:
'First, they must be open about sharing the data that underlie their findings....
'Second, scientists should devote more effort to observation. ..
'Lastly, scientists should give weight to all the evidence, not just the consensus. ..'
This would be damning indeed if applied to real scientists, since these are elementary building-blocks of real science.
It will be felt as a smack on the fingers by the geographers, computer modellers, religious and environmental mystics, PR whizzes, and political activists who successfully invented and promoted their own 'consensus' via the IPCC. I
Caroline,
Here is the link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/457d3fc2-4006-11df-8d23-00144feabdc0.html
Thank you Frank S
Science based on observation ... whatever next?
Thank you too Mike Post
I try not to 'register' with things. I get too much spam anyway. Also I really don't want any more paywalls, so I try not to register (not a good theory but if they don't know who's reading they can't target their costings).
I hope paywalls don't go any further - I couldn't chose a single newspaper and I couldn't afford to look at all the ones I want to look at. I think this may be a halcyon time - when we can compare and contrast all the different coverage to spot the flaws and hypocrisies.
Caroline --
Agree with your post (the one thanking Mike). At one time I read the FT because it was fairly objective. It was meant to be a good source of information for making financial decisions at one time. Now that is gone. I do read Bloomberg's On-line edition every day, but I find more and more of the "objective" newspapers being highly opinionated.
However, as long as blogs such as the Bishop's exist, we can at least learn about what other facts exist. I personally like Bishop Hill because Andrew pretty much allows anyone to speak their mind, which is good. While I doubt that FOD will ever convince me of anything, I have learned a great deal from others: Phillip, Atomic Hairdryer, Dreadnought, ScientistForTruth, Kevin, and many, many others such as the numerous Mikes, Pauls, Steves, and ladies like yourself who make comments that are quiet stimulating.
As long as that continues, we will be in a halcyon time - when we can compare and contrast all the different coverage to spot the flaws and hypocrisies
Long live the Blogosphere!
Can anyone remember what we are arguing about?
"Climate Change" has become shorthand for "do as we say right now or you are an evil person and the weather gods will get angry".
Apart from the fact that all priests believe in God, it's bad for business not to, the following is the way I understand science operates.
A model which doesn't work completely, is appended with a theoretical construct that 'balances the books'. Like the Higgs Boson, Einstein's cosmological constant or dark energy / matter. Climate models didn't predict the perceived warning, so an attribution of human activities was made. Increased atmospheric Co2 pointed the finger in that direction.
There is nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe the average voter would be comfortable with it as a reason to create a multi trillion dollar carbon trading market leading with resulting increased energy prices.
It is also true that the consensus conveniently attracted billions in research grants.
// "...devote more effort to observation"
There is little or no direct observation in "climate science". The weather observations are taken from worldwide met organisations - then mangled or lost.
What else is there ? Photos of polar bears and interviews with unnamed ski instructors. Ho hum.
Not many comments at the FT yet. I have posted the following:
There is no consensus. Science doesn't work by consensus. If it did, the FT would find that a majority of independent scientists do not accept man made climate change. The supposed consensus, as claimed by the IPCC and UK government, is a political consensus of "climate scientists" who are paid to show that humans are affecting the global climate. These "climate scientists" would be out of a job if they disagreed with this political consensus. Of course these "climate scientists" have provided no evidence in support of the theory of man made climate change - only [snip- not here please] data as revealed by Climategate and the projections of worthless computer models. They have an argument of ignorance, which states that because they cannot think what else is causing the "recent warming", then it must be human emissions of CO2. That is, of course scientific, bunkum, or in the words of that great scientist, Richard P Feynman, "cargo cult science".
Don Pablo,
"At one time I read the FT because it was fairly objective. It was meant to be a good source of information for making financial decisions at one time. Now that is gone."
An accurate observation. I subscribe to the FT for its unambiguous factual data, but it also employs several highly readable, insightful commentators who are good value. Unfortunately the FT has, in my opinion, completely lost its objectivity when it pontificates on climate change - lack of scientific education in the editorial department perhaps? Irrational belief has taken over. Today's FT editorial, to which the Bishop refers, reads as if the writer is losing his faith but can't quite yet come to accept the loss. A cause for optimism maybe?
"lack of scientific education in the editorial department perhaps?"
Mike - I'd say extend that to the media full stop but it is clear that many of the climate "scientists" are in the same boat! :)
I'd say the 'consensus' foundation is that the IPCC reports involve '2500' scientists who labour mightily to produce the reports, and most importantly the position statements by the national academies and scientific societies stating that they support the 'consensus'. A further claim is often that the majority of climate scientists support the 'consensus'.
The subject of the consensus is usually something along the lines of 'global warming is mainly caused by human activity'.
For example, the dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M spontaneously felt it necessary to issue a statement recently which stated that the dept. agreed with the recent IPCC reports that:
It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.
Voila. Consensus.
Phillip Bratby
I normally agree with most of what you say as you probably know but be careful about going over the top.
It may be that the Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al are relying on [snip - thanks for pointing this out to PB though] data but that has not been proved to the satisfaction of the majority of neutral observers and it ill becomes those of us of a skeptical bent to overstate our case.
I think E Smith has it about right when he argues that there is not enough evidence to justify the level of expenditure that is being bandied about by politicians and businesses that see yet another trough to get their snouts in.
If we could persuade people of just what the cost of this fiasco is then we might see a bit of pressure applied in the right quarters. The voters would certainly not be happy if they had all the facts.
Chuckles: the late 20th century warming was (a) not unprecedented and (b) no more rapid than previous periods of warming. And despite the best efforts of Mann etc., it is by no means established that current temperatures are any higher than past ones (e.g. in the Middle Ages).
Future generations are going to laugh their socks off at us being in such a fret about a warming of less than one degree over a century (and that's assuming the measurements are accurate and dependable - which is in itself a whole area of debate).
@TT,
Couldn't agree more, but that is the 'consensus' which the heretics deny, and for which they will be cast into the darkness. Much of the political side of AGW/CC relies on these convoluted and obscure definitions and coded phrases, and I try as much as possible to state them in full.
Mainly to highlight how ridiculous and silly they are.
Sam the Skeptic wrote:
"If we could persuade people of just what the cost of this fiasco is then we might see a bit of pressure applied in the right quarters. The voters would certainly not be happy if they had all the facts." [emphasis added -hro]
Aye, there's the rub. Until about 2 weeks BC [Before Climategate], I, for one, had little clue what the facts were (or even what the IPCC was, for that matter). I was quite happy to do my bit for the environment by turning off lights in rooms not in use, dutifully separating garbage so that recylables could be recycled (well, at least in theory ... even if they did still end up in landfills) etc. At the back of my mind, though, there was certainly a question as to how it ever got determined that the dreaded C02 could be so harmful to the future of the planet. Not to mention that even if this was the case, how on God's green earth did scientists ever manage to separate out the contriubtion of our CO2 from all the other CO2 in the atmosphere?!
In the meantime, thanks to sites like this, WUWT and CA, I've learned an enormous amount - particularly how gullible (lazy?!) most of the MSM "science" journalists (with relatively few notable exceptions) have been. So it is encouraging to see signs (such as this one from the FT) of the tide turning.
But speaking of the FT, there's another article on their site which indicates that Pachauri has evidently been "cleared of allegations of financial irregularity by an independently conducted review."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44a0a92c-3a8e-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html
In the same (March 28) article, Pachauri "robustly" defends the choice of Oxburgh and also speaks of another audit he had commissioned "to examine the practices of the IPCC and the science contained in its report, [which] would put to rest allegations of flaws in climate science." Oh, well, if he did "commission" this audit, it would be quite typical, wouldn't it; but I seem to recall that this audit was to be "commissioned" by some body other than Pachauri!
Bottom line: it's going to be an uphill battle to bring this steamroller to a halt.
Chuckles,
Point by point:
"it is virtually certain that ..." (so far so good)
"It is very likely that ..."
"If we ... it is very likely that ..."
"...brings with it a risk that ..."
Can't you see that without any quantification such statements are not hypotheses, not even predictions, just idle speculation.
Another instance: the IPCC predicts that sea levels will most likely rise between (wait for it)
11cm and 59 cm
by 2100. Erm, sorry, which is it? 11 or 59?
What on earth are we to make of such a 'consensus'
@O'Geary, You mean you doubt the obvious insincerity? Again, it is climate science/IPCC speak. These are 'likelihoods' rather than 'levels of confidence' and are used to quantify 'expert views'.
Well, what is a 'consensus' if not an 'expert view'?
Anyway, 'very likely that' means >99%, so the folks at Texas A&M think it's just about a dead cert. Course, that's not a stats type probability, more a sort of educated guess?
Oh, these definitions come from the IPCC Guidance Notes for Lead Authors, so that's all right then.
And it just goes on like this forever. But everyone agrees. There's a consensus. Climate changes. Warming happens. Some people might be involved.
Oh, and on the 11 or 59cm sea level rise thing, it does that every 12 hours or so doesn't it?
I just posted the following at the FT (apologies for cross posting but one never knows what will survive moderation!) Good to see the FT beginning to question the data the IPCC relies on. But the real problem lies deeper, in the fundamental flaws in the statistical methodolgy deployed by the IPCC (especially in the crucial Chapter 9 of AR4, WG1). The authors of that chapter relied on completely erroneous regression analysis to obtain the supposed 90% certainty of causation of the very slight global warming observed since 1900 (0.7oC) by the 40% increase in the level of atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1900. Significantly, those authors never exposed their regression results (or those of the authors whose papers they cite, more than half of which are by themselves). Perhaps like CRU's Phil Jones they could not relocate their own papers and results? Anyway the fatal flaw in their secret analyses is the existence of what is known as a unit root in the temperature series, which means that the data are 'stochastic', i.e. random, and therefore cannot be used in the simple-minded regression analysis relied on by the IPCC's myriad authors for their claim of 90% certainty that warming is anthropogenic. Gosh, if we anthros are so clever surely by now we could have got our temperatures back to the glory days of 1680 when the Thames froze over every winter? Seriously, if one adjusts the temperature series to negate the unit root by taking year on year differences, then we find that there is NO statistically significant (that is we have 95% confidence) relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and any actual warming since 1900. But such is the control of the academic climate journals still exercised by Phil Jones and his cronies like Michael Mann and James Annan that none of this work will ever see the light of day in those journals - but google Demetris Koutsoyannis to see work which will one day win a real Nobel.
Apologies. I will try and refrain from using the f word in future. Every time it comes to mind I will try and say something along the lines of "cherry-picked data which has been manipulated using inappropriate statistics and other methods which are hidden from exposure, contrary to the scientific principles involving full disclosure of all data and methods". Unless someone can come up with some less cumbersome description.
If you want to know where the consensus came from there is strong evidence that it was a manufactured PR stunt by the IPCC. They have never given the names of the 2400 scientists who supported the CAGW theory. However take a look at this note from the climategate emails, to Mike Hulme. Hulme did not carry out the request, but clearly someone did.
"From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo"
Scientists?
geronimo:
"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause."
I wonder what the cause would be for these tax-payer funded "climate scientists":
Maintaining scientific integrity?
Advocating AGW?
Take your pick.
It may have been Al Gore who first claimed a consensus about climate science, appropriately enough on April Fool's day in year 2000.
In "Consensus? What Consensus?" (written in Feb 2008) you can find my take on it. I never did discover exactly what the claimed consensus referred to because it certainly didn't apply to published papers (which is surprising given the loaded funding) and it didn't apply to the IPCC reports in any meaningful way, unless you think that 53, all of whom seem to be climate modellers or associated with modellers, can reach a meaningful consensus about a human influence on climate.
The FT also sold cap and trade, in recent years ignoring the issues with fraud and tendency to de-industrialise the countries that take it on board (and the rather dubious implication of politicians getting direct control over a lot of industry and funds to re-distribute as they wish - outside of public scrutiny). I miss reading the FT, but it is almost impossible to determine when they are presenting what somebody wants them to present, and when they are honestly reporting. I now suspect reporting of the EU and UN has the same bias. I suspect they are fed stories from the establishment in return for being supportive. That makes me uneasy about trusting their judgement on things like the banking crisis. They present a lot of facts, but that is only helpful if they present the facts from both sides. The FT appears to accept any comments, although the comments section is lost after a while. I doubt they would change their stance because of reader comments because they are aimed at bureaucrats and bankers. If you aren't one of those 2 groups your viewpoint is unlikely to be important to them, and if you are one of those 2 groups your contact would be more direct..
Geronimo wrote:
"If you want to know where the consensus came from there is strong evidence that it was a manufactured PR stunt by the IPCC. They have never given the names of the 2400 scientists who supported the CAGW theory. However take a look at this note from the climategate emails, to Mike Hulme. Hulme did not carry out the request, but clearly someone did"
Actually, Hulme did participate in building the early version of this "consensus". See:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-fog-of-uncertainty-and-the-precautionary-principle/
It's also somewhat ironic that 12 years later, Alcamo, now with the UNEP (IPCC's parent) announced that "as policymakers and the public begin to grasp the multi-billion dollar price tag for mitigating and adapting to climate change, we should expect a sharper questioning of the science behind climate policy." [emphasis added -hro]
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/interests-conflict-in-cloudy-climate-science/
Alas, Pachauri and the IPCC crowd seemed to have missed that part of Alcamo's address at the "Opening Session of 31st Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bali, 26 October, 2009."
Thanks, Chuckles.
I didn't notice you were really - ahem - having a Chuckle
It really boils down to:
who put the "con" in "consensus"?
From the article:
"The consensus remains that man’s activities are contributing to climate change in ways that may be disastrous."
For the many folks that don't read the entire articles and only skim through part of it, this statement in the second paragraph may be what sticks with them the most.
Looks to me like FT continues to promote "the consensus" and continues to promote that it is "man's activities" that are causing what may become disastrous (catastrophic?)
Or, at least, some will read it that way.
Thanks John McL for your item on Consensus.
Here is an extract from page 3 of a philosophical article by Sinai Weisberg. There is a link at the bottom to the cpmplete article.
Extract from Sinai Waisberg document, Global Warming Consensus:
It is noteworthy that in the realm of politics there is a strong tendency for consensus to be formed only among the worst elements of society. The reasons for such were put forward by the economist Friedrich A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom. The following passage contains the core of his argument:
In the first instance, it is probably true that, in general, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ―common instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards. It merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards (…) Here comes in the second negative principle of selection: [a political dictator] will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently (…) It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skilful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off-than on any positive task. The contrast between the ―we and the ―they, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses (…)
Read complete 5 page document here:
http://www.globalwarmingconsensus.com/files/global-warming-consensus.pdf
Only 10 comments to date on the FT site - all anti consensus. If we can generate 24 here why not 24 on the FT site guys?
If we can generate 24 here why not 24 on the FT site guys?
I do hope you were being sarcastic, because I suspect they have hired the Guardian to "moderate".
No proof, just suspicion.
Or, perhaps Phillip is right and nobody is looking at it but us?
Can I suggest writing letters to the FT via email at letters.editor@ft.com ? There is a good letter at the top of the Letters section in today's paper from David Henderson which draws attention to the failures of, amongst others, the FT's own environment correspondents and leader writers.
I suspect that only the confirmed sceptics visit blogs such as this, whereas the letters pages of the mainstream press are read by the many who up until recently have been accepting and incurious about climate science.