Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.
-Nicolaus Copernicus
In the comments area of Lamentation for Jake, Jake triple-dog-dared me to respond to his wieldy comment. I have no problem accepting this challenge, but it will take several posts. Although Jake brought up several issues, I decided to start with his comments on global warming. He said:
It is apparent that you think that human action has done little to effectively change global warming trends. So, I guess this is another clarification, since I can’t engage in a debate unless I know where you stand. Do you believe that warming trends are temporary, or completely natural, and human action has little or no to do with them? It seems that you regard the widespread concern over global warming that may be attributable to human action to little more than a widespread liberal conspiracy. So do you believe that the wealth of researchers who do believe (or at least purport to believe) that human action has had a significant impact is literally nothing more than a conspiracy and the studies and models are contrived? I can certainly respect taking such an unpopular stance, and arguing it aggressively, but I am trying to figure out just what stance you are taking, so as to discuss it further. As for me, I believe that there is a natural warming trend that would occur regardless of human presence, but I also believe that the effects of masses of greenhouse gasses is multiplying the natural trend in ways that are noticeably affecting our climate. For example, I don’t think that miles of disappearing glaciers in places like Alaska have nothing to do with human presence and the emission of greenhouse gasses, and I do think it is sensible to invest in ways to minimize such emissions. So, all jokes aside, tell me what you actually believe and we can debate the evidence.
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
-Margaret Thatcher
I approach the discourse of global warming alarmism from the perspective of one who is a casual reader of both chaos theory and complexity theory. I believe that warming trends are at best irrelevant. To reductively approach something as broad and dynamic as the climate of an entire planet by analyzing the impact that a single element has on this complex system is an affront to scientific inquiry. To politicize this reductive knowledge is an insult to democracy.
A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.
-Abba Eban
I am not sure who the wealth of researchers are to whom you refer that support your position. I do know that Al Gore likes to claim that there is a consensus in the scientific community that his farcical view of global warming is a transcendental objective truth. However, I have also read the primary source from which Al Gore makes this claim. He quotes a brief essay from the scholarly publication, Science, called Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. I also know from my own research that like Al Gore, the author of this article, Naomi Oreskes, has no legitimate credentials in climatology. Here is Oreskes’ description of her methodology for this report:
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of theconsensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position oncurrent anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensusposition.
So basically she is just doing an analysis of what other climatologists have said based on ill-conceived and arbitrary criteria of judgment. If you want to read about how a credentialed climatologist, Benny Peiser, rips her dumb little, non-peer-reviewed essay apart, you can read what Oreskes got Wrong.
Here are some highlights:
Oreskes’ essay had covered not the entire corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stated decade but fewer than one-thirteenth of them.
Oreskes’ essay does not state how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her limited definition.
In any event, it is reprehensible that a learned journal should publish defective material and should then, in effect, expect its readers to surf the Internet to find the truth.
The editors of Science also refused to publish any of the numerous other letters that they had received pointing out the deficiencies in Oreskes’ analysis.
The article where I am pulling this from is five pages long and should be read in its entirety. It was written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is one of the leading anthropogenic global warming skeptics.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
-Michael Crichton
I appreciate that you can respect my desire to take an “unpopular” stance and argue it aggressively, but I don’t see any evidence that the global warming alarmismists are interested in open-minded and aggressive debate.
Recently, Viscount Monckton was invited by Republicans to testify before Congress for a hearing on Climate Change where Al Gore would also be presenting his thoroughly discredited ideas. However, the Democrats refused to let Monckton testify. Monckton has challenged Gore to a debate, and Gore has refused in a most cowardly fashion.
If I were a Democrat I would be extremely embarrassed by this fiasco. If your theory of anthropogenic global warming is so solidly supported by scientific evidence, then wouldn’t it be delightful to watch Gore put Monckton in his place? Why are Democrats and liberals stifling this debate, that clearly isn’t over to anyone who even tries to read the scientific literature? Since when did skepticism lose its status among those who purport to be scientists? I always thought that skepticism was the fuel of science? Above all, if you are going to work the public to a frenzy using shoddy science, and Soviet style suppression of dissent, why couldn’t we pick something sexier than the global climate? (Although I do understand that by picking such a boring topic, most of the general public will be too lazy to look into it). Reading scientific literature on climate change is tedious and boring. I can’t blame climatologists for trying to create a little controversy- given the drollness of their profession. I would much prefer a fabricated crisis having to do with astronomy, genetics, carnivorous animals – anything but climate. It would be a lot more fun to follow policy debates about the sun moving into red giant phase, thus causing genetic mutations in polar bears that enables them to endure hot climates, so they migrate south and start ravaging major metropolitan areas. Now that’s good science…fiction.
Stay tuned for my next post:
on 
on 
You should talk to Brian about his views about global warming, he being an oil man. America’s Next Top Model huh, interesting, can’t wait.
Jana, don’t you know that all anti-global warming studies are funded by oil companies. We certainly can’t trust their opinion. How biased. Unlike the government sponsored university-industrial complex that is responsible for funding most scientific research in this area. Tell Brian to start reading my blog, I bet he’d like it.
It never was about global warming… it is all a shell game to use that as an excuse to pass massive taxes on people. Al Gore can burn all the oil he wants because he pays “carbon offset” fees so he can fly his jets around, keep several houses, and consume as much juice as a neighborhood. Meanwhile, the guys who work in the coal mines, steel mills, or paper plants will lose their jobs because those industries, and every other consumer will have to pay massive taxes that will be used to fund healthcare, not “global warming.”
Harrison’s last blog post..Giving Nancy Pelosi Her Rope
Ben,
You are absolutely correct on the nature of scientific consensuses. Anyone who has read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” would be thoroughly convinced of the socially constructed nature of such consensus. However, limiting this discussion to the extent to which there is a scientific consensus is but a small part of the larger question.
I find myself often in the very position of arguing against a massive majority for points that are so obviously valid to me, and yet fall so far outside of the closely held assumptions of the majority that it is hard to make oneself heard (speaking here as both a qualitative psychologists and a psychological anthropologist – I am a stark intellectual minority in both fields to which I identify). However, I have also noticed that people who are open to analyzing their own assumptions are willing to be convinced, if the evidence and reasoning is sufficient to the task. Others are simply beyond convincing because they don’t consider their own assumptions a valid topic of debate. I like to consider myself one of the former, and I consider any methodologically sound evidence without too obvious of a preconceived bias fair game.
I take your point that the scientific consensus is anything but certain, and that even the very consideration of the weight of such a consensus is questionable, since the majority of scientists do not do research on climate change. However, I would dispute the point that such a consensus (to the extent that it is meaningful among experts on the topic) is purely illusory – although it is surely not absolute – considering the weight of support for the IPCC’s findings as well as recent surveys, including that cited by Viscount Monckton (his citation indicates that 75% do not question the anthropogenic causes of global warming, although he emphasizes the 25% who do), as well as the study summarized here: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html (I hate to do this, but you could also Wikipedia “Scientific opinion on climate change,” although I wouldn’t put all of my eggs in that basket).
I think it is also essential to point out that the case is by no means closed, and any honest scientist has to admit that there is an overwhelming lack of knowledge and research on these issues, and that the future data may well indicate that anthropogenic sources are minimal or non-existent. However, when it comes to political action, given the current state of knowledge and “best guesses” given the current research, I don’t see a compelling reason not to be concerned and to work toward limiting greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing else, then the very knowledge (albeit falsifiable knowledge) of the nature of heat-trapping gasses and the extent of increased emissions of said gasses into the atmosphere, in my book, creates a due cause for concern, even though I don’t think we are burning up tomorrow. Further, one thing we can be certain of is that fossil fuels are indeed limited (the scope of which is also uncertain), and if nothing else this global concern and the ensuing political action can incentivize development of alternative energy industries, which would help with that future problem.
So, in sum, I guess I disagree with your statement that ” I believe that warming trends are at best irrelevant” and that the system is too utterly complex to consider the weight of any single factor. When the weight of that factor is understood to be such a substantial portion of what maintains heat in the atmosphere, I think that it can’t be ignored, regardless of how complex the system may be.
Ask for Oreskes and Monckton, I think that Orseskes methodology appears sketchy, as I saw nothing about inter-rater reliability (the methodological standard for such practices), and the report seemed unsatisfying brief. Monckton’s article appears not to be interested in science but in nitpicking points for his aims. I must say I am still not sure what you find so impressive about it, save itsferver for dissent on the issue. I am sure the same could be said for Al Gore, although I must say I don’t listen to him much – is that too disrespectful for the guy who invented the internet?!? As far as a debate is concerned, I honestly don’t think these two guys matter, beyond the effect they may have on public opinion. Maybe Gore is a wuss (sp?), but neither of them would do much to sway my opinion.
As far as open-ness to debate, I think it would certainly be healthy that people read commentaries on both sides. In fact I think doing some of the research for this posting has perhaps tempered my view a bit. I think people outside of the disciplines where the research is being conducted are too quick to essentialize the findings, and I think this has certainly happened with global warming activism and media coverage. At the same time, when I read the research and given my admittedly limited understanding, I can’t accept the notion that the whole thing is a liberal conspiracy and contrived out of thin air. I think there is evidence to suggest we should be concerned, but I also think there is a lot yet to know, and I hope that people will be open to what future findings may bring. It is certainly not encouraging for people of your view, however, that Thomas Kuhn suggests that a new scientific paradigm can’t thoroughly take hold until the last scientist is dead. Even if the tide of evidence shifts, things don’t look promising for ebbing the tide of global warming activism.
-Jacob
but but Ben… Al Gore won the Nobel Prize! It has to be real.
Has Santa Clause ever won the Nobel Prize?
I apologize for my sarcasm, It’s how I put things into perspective for my own sake. Plus it’s so easy with Al Gore. Anyway, I think both sides of this debate are doing a great job. It’s nice to see some constructive debate, where the main intent of the conversation is not malicious, or meant to discredit the other, but rather to come to a better understanding. I can only wish that that was how Washington was run.
This is something that has been on my mind for a while, and I would like to think I’m wrong. I know that this is a fallacious comment, and therefore not useful in debate, but I’m under the impression that alot of people will believe just about anything that T.V. tells them. Just to get this straight, I am in no way implying that any of the opinions posted here are subject of such ignorance, however my point goes more towards general lazyness in the population of young adults. Rather than go out and actually read the facts on both sides of the debate, it’s easier to believe the consensus. I think my generation, my self included, has this need to be entertained constantly… and looking up facts for both sides of a debate is just too dang boring for any of us to do. It’s so much easier to just believe who has the louder voice. So I think this is where, as Ben pointed out, the “consenus findings” can be a very powerful tool to grip people from my generation into supporting pretty much whatever you want them to. After all who wants to be the only un-cool kid in school. You know the one with an oppinion? In the case of global warming it doesn’t help when the very forms of entertainment we seek out to help us not think have underlying political agendas in them thanks to hollywoods undying liberalist views. A good example of this would be film The Day After Tomorrow. Anyway sorry this post is kind of tangential, and for my unpracticed basic english skills, but to sum it all up, I think that Jacob is absolutely right when he says that everyone needs to do a bit more research before soaking in all things media as fact. Or if you are a multiculturalist, subjects of personal opinion.
Hey Ben, I wanted to tell you a story that made me think of this blog.
Earlier today, my fiancees mom was driving around Salt Lake City with her window rolled down. Suddenly a man riding a long board slammed into her, and yelled in her face “You’re killing MY planet with your laziness!” He would not leave her alone, and she couldn’t drive away because she was afraid to run him over. The light turned green, and people behind her had to go drag this man off of her car so that traffic could proceed.
Clearly the open-minded side of society. I’m sure it’s horribly practical to long board to salt lake city from utah county.