What passes for AGW credibility - PNAS

I refer you to the recent PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy Of Science) article here. It's a sad day that such a renowned publication would stoop this low. A few points:

- Why is it asserted that the credibility of a climate researcher is, in any way, tied to the level of his activity in publishing articles, papers, etc., which agree with the IPCC? (There is an implicit insult by this paper that those listed on the 'opposition' side are simply incompetent to the extent they cannot understand the science behind the AGW theory because they disagree with 98% on the 'credible' list.)

- Why does the PNAS have a article tag named 'climate denier'? Is this an appropriate subject category on the same level as 'citation analysis'? (Sounds suspiciously like they have 'chosen sides' in the debate. Are they developing a 'blacklist'?)

- The paper effectively divides individuals into groups - 'supporters' and 'deniers' of AGW (ACC). Why? (This will yield a list with Al Gore on one side and Freeman Dyson on the other - neither of whom is considered a specialist in climate science. In a discussion on the scientific aspects of energy transfer and its relationship or relevance to measuring the effects and probable causes of climate change - should I value Al Gore's scientific opinion as being more credible than Dyson's simply because Gore (a) agrees with the IPCC and (b) has more noses lined up behind him? Absurd. Yet, it is arguable this is the paper's objective: determining WHO should be considered as having a credible opinion. And, apparently, PNAS agrees. Sad.)

Again: Science is not a democracy. You do not advance the understanding of natural, observed Real World processes because anyone says so (no matter how many others may agree/disagree). The ONLY way to find out the answer (or check for accuracy) is to examine the a theory critically, using available evidence, with the intent to disprove. When one enters the world of human reputations, you cannot help but become tainted by bias, conflicts of interest, personality defects, political power grabs, and - yes - the corrupting influence of money (regardless of the source).

Human history has shown, time and again, that true, long-term scientific accuracy and understanding stems from AVOIDING that giant septic tank of conflicts. The pursuit of 'Science' must RISE ABOVE the realm of human frailties and insist (demand) impartial analysis of scientific Real World evidence, which can be duplicated for testing and evaluation purposes. This means you set aside guesses, estimates or output from complex computer models and consider the evidence. Really. After all, disproving a theory only requires ONE dissenting piece of evidence, from any source, even if the researcher doesn't have a laundry list of degrees and pile of publication royalty checks.


What happened to the PNAS? What happened to the Scientific Method? Egad.

- Steve

The state of Climate Science

A most interesting document on climate science is found here...

I think it’s well written, cuts to the core, and uses an unusual style of writing. It doesn't appear to be pushing a pre-defined position or agenda. It’s not really written to entertain, but provides substantial clarity. It highlights the rhetorical flaws in the reasoning and argument styles on both sides, which gives it a comprehensive punch. Say what you will, but it actually tries to explain something. There are no attempts to obscure meaning while rehashing well-known key phrases. It’s 79 pages long, (no cartoons, sigh) and doesn't even have any graphs, but incredibly, it has sentences that are actually readable. And, merciful God, it's written by a law professor of all people! Damning with understated tones.

IMHO, it's surprisingly good.

- Steve

Future of American Space Flight

Here's a thought for how to encourage private (and Amercian) commercial Space Exploration.

Pass and sign legislation stating the following:

"Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States: The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American-owned company - and if a corporation at least 75% of the shares must be held by American citizens - the following amounts for specific accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science. The payments made shall be exempt from *all* US taxes.

1. ("The One X-Prize") - The sum of $1 billion to be paid for the completion of a beyond-earth-orbit unmanned mission with a spacecraft which maintains a *constant* thrust of at least 1/100th of a G for a period not less than 1 month (30 days). Said mission should carry a science package weighing at least 1000 kg and use on-board instruments to study a planetary body outside the earth-moon system (minimum distance ten (10) million miles from Earth).

2. ("The Three X-Prize") - The sum of $3 billion to be paid for construction of three (3) operational spacecraft which have achieved LEO (low earth orbit), returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three (3) times within a period of three (3) weeks.

3. ("The Five X-Prize") - The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least five (5) Americans aboard for a period of not less than one thousand and one (1001) days. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

4. ("The Ten X-Prize") - The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 1000 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station (or stations) located within the continental (48 states) United States for a period of at least one hundred (100) weeks.

5. ("The Twenty-Five X-Prize") - The sum of $25 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 25 Americans have continuously resided one thousand and one (1001) days. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the base be unoccupied.


* * * This is chump change compared to what has been doled out the last few years with NO promise or guarantee of results. AND note that not one red cent is to be paid until a specifically defined goal is accomplished and verified. Yeah, there is a HUGE amount of risk for the business, but the potential rewards beyond the prize money itself is tremendous. Note that there is no requirement to 'turn over' said base or equipment to the government - it will remain privately owned and operated. This is simply a mechanism to reward those willing to take the risk. Besides, if the task can't be done for the amount of the reward money... no harm done to the treasury.

Just a thought... Beats the hell out of standing around and going nowhere.

- Steve

The Changing Status of Climate Change

To begin -- the ClimateGate controversy demonstrates there are legitimate concerns about the CRU datasets and manipulation of the climate modeling system as a whole. The much trumpeted and balleyhooed peer-review process has effectively descended into a farce of near-criminal proportions.

Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently recanted its own conclusions and proclamations on glacial melting occurring before 2035, aka GlacierGate, said conclusions based on a single, non-peer-reviewed article by the WWF advocacy group.

To make matters worse, and proving this was not an isolated situation, the same thing happened again, aka AmazonGate, where the IPCC published and promoted claims of the impending endangerment of some 40% of the Amazon rainforest. (Bizarrely, even the WWF's own report on the Amazon forest doesn't support this conclusion. You'd think the IPCC's peer-review process would have caught that...)

Then, in a classic case of kicking-them-while-they're-down, there is the PachauriGate revelation, where Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, was identified as chairman of the board or otherwise connected to several companies positioned to profit handsomely from current climate change proposals. Hardly a disinterested party. (And have you looked at Al Gore's business interests lately?)

* sigh *

Worse, this entire situation has devolved into a series of sniping attacks by both sides against the other. (Yes, I am guilty as charged. Mea culpa.) However, regardless of which position anyone supports, here is the key point:

If we can't trust scientists, and scientists are the ones telling us we can't trust other scientists, how can we trust the scientists telling us not to trust other scientists?

A puzzlement... But to continue...

- If the global temperature monitoring system were viewed as a 'lab instrument' it has never had even ONE DAY where it could remotely be considered to be 'in calibration'. Worse, not only is the instrumentation itself 'uncalibrated', it is systematically being 'adjusted' to ensure that it shows a warming trend. Significant numbers of data points are simply 'made up' (i.e., 'interpolated') from stations located sometimes over 1000 km away. Example: a single station now supplies all the data for Canada north of 65 degrees (and that location is frequently described as the 'Garden Spot of the Arctic'). In many instances, stations showing cooling trends are systematically dropped from data reporting.

- It's arguable *ALL* terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems which render them USELESS for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. The data have been skewed to the point of overstating observed warming both regionally and globally. Instrumental temperature data for 1850-1980 have been widely, systematically, and uni-directionally 'adjusted' to the point they cannot be credibly support the assertion of significant "global warming" in the 20th century.

- Global terrestrial temperature datasets have been critically compromised, if for no other reason, than because ¾ of the 6,000 stations which once existed are no longer reported or tracked(!) There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further overstatement of warming due to contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades. Numerous peer-reviewed papers have shown the overstatement is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone, and when combined with the cherry-picking of observation sites and interpolated data grids, the heat-island bias could easily be more than 50% of any reported 20th-century warming. Thus: The temperature data bases are seriously flawed and cannot be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE climate model predictions.

- In the oceans, critical data are 'missing' and uncertainties about what we do have are real. It has been presented by some that comprehensive coverage of ocean data has only been available since 2003... and that data shows no warming. Ouch.

- Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors such as multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.

- NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were among the driving forces behind the systematic declarations of 20th-century "global warming". These organizations should return to the critically vital task of data gathering - just maintain the integrity of the data collection process (and long-term storage!) and then provide data to various researchers as requested for independent analysis.

- A comprehensive external assessment of the surface temperature database records of CRU, GISS and NCDC "chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations" is critically needed IMMEDIATELY.

- Any reports which rely on the global data by both the UN's IPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP groups requires a FULL and IMPARTIAL investigation and audit.

* * * * *

Now - The following conclusions are MINE and dive into the realm of motivations and motives - which cannot be proven with any certainty - but, with that said...

First, the current proposals (supposedly) designed to address the AGW concerns - “cap-and-tax”, emissions trading, etc. - should be set aside until (a) the accuracy of the underlying supporting science can be confirmed and (b) the proposal be proven to accurately monitor and address the stated issue. IMHO, the emission trading systems currently proposed for the US and elsewhere - or as implemented in the EU - are 'phantom' trading mechanisms which offer no detectable effect on ANY aspect of climate, and (apparently) have all the identifying marks of a government-supported Ponzi scheme... The only ones likely to benefit from such systems are the traders... Why else are the larger world-wide banking institutions - e.g, the same folks that brought us the real estate collapse - be among its strongest backers?

Second, it can be reasonably argued that (1) the main climatology data centers have been and are continuing to produce fraudulent evidence in support of AGW, (2) the centers have actively concealed data and reports which contradict the AGW premise, (3) the responsible 'scientists' in charge of the centers have used the respect of their positions to personally attack the professional status and integrity of individuals and groups who question their findings, and (4) the majority of major climate experts are funded by governments (national and international), for the (apparently) express purpose of providing a 'scientific' and technical justification for the expansion of government power over individuals worldwide - not for 'solving' a climate 'problem'.

Third, the most important conclusion we can reach from all this, is that we don't really know what many of our experts have been assuring us that they *do* know - and that political leaders around the world including the President of the United States - are far more certain of the results of the available "science" than scientific evidence itself objectively warrants.

Fourth, the unjustified reliance on computer model predictions - especially when those models to not accurately reflect or track with real-world observations - needs to be scaled back immediately. Whenever you deal with a large-scale and extremely complex system like the climate, you will, by definition, have a significant level of 'uncertainty' about the model results. And when you consider the rate of change, local effects, and - most importantly - the measurable effect of mankind's actions (positive and negative) increases that level of uncertainty.

Fifth, climate scientists - on BOTH sides - should completely and fully release the data and calculations behind their analysis and predictions. They should be less hostile to those who disagree with them, and show a little humility that THEY MIGHT BE WRONG. I strongly believe increasing the openness about the scientific uncertainties surrounding climate science would have the long-term effect of increasing public confidence in the science behind it, rather than continue to undermine it. That will not eliminate the danger that some people (scientists and non-scientists) will continue to manipulate the data for their own agenda-driven ends, but the benefits from being open far outweigh the potential danger (which will come out in the wash eventually). NOTE: I think it’s healthy to properly pursue and welcome skepticism at all levels. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. Bullying tactics of any kind or form are self-destructive and childish in the extreme.

Consider... a company as large and complex as Boeing can have its stock prices drop due to lower earnings in a three-month period than was predicted by analysts. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of hours consumed by a multitude of stock researchers using independent (and proprietary) computers models dedicated to predicting those future earnings. Boeing (and these analysts) have access to incredibly accurate data about Boeing's operations and prospects - and yet they still can't get it right over such a short period of time.

Yet climate scientists seem quite content to place their trust (and ours) in the modeling results of a vastly more complex system (climate), for a time period spanning multiple decades or even centuries. They do this even when it has been proven there are real integrity issues with the source (raw) data. The impact of their predictions and associated proposals to address climate concerns have vastly more impact on the world as a whole - yet precision and accuracy, not to mention comparison of the model to real-world observable events, seems to be, at best, an afterthought... Curious.

That's enough for this rant...

- Steve

* * * * *
one source, among many: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf (Caveat: Are the authors well-known “deniers”? Yes. So what? That does not disqualify them from evaluating the available data or the evidence presented by AGW proponents. And, yes, they are trying to disprove AGW claims - that's the job the peer-reviewers are supposed to do, isn't it? Remember: it only takes ONE confirmed contrary observation from *any* source to disprove a theory.)
* * * * *

Science versus the Consensus

To begin, I was raised in an environment that considered Science and Politics to be completely different beasts. Of the two, politics is considered inferior: If you weren't bright enough to do science, you could always go into politics. I retain that prejudice today. I also subscribe to an older and tougher tradition that regards science as the business of developing theories to explain observable phenomena, then testing those theories against measured data from the Real World. Untestable hypotheses are not Science. Unproven theories may be based in science, but are still not (necessarily) Truth.

BTW - When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did the word require quotation marks around it? Just asking...

By example, and in what will be a surprise to some, I believe that environmental awareness and understanding is critically important. The environment is our shared life support system; it is what we pass on to the next generation. How we act today has consequences — potentially serious consequences, and especially in the financial and political realms — for future generations.

But I have also come to believe that the current 'conventional wisdom' (e.g., 'the consensus') with respect to the environment is unscientific, badly out of date, and ultimately damaging to the very environment it supposes to 'protect'. Example: Yellowstone National Park has raw sewage seeping out of the ground. A century of direct 'management' of Yellowstone has proven time and again to be disastrous in the extreme. We must be doing something wrong. We have been arrogantly ignorant with the best of intentions.

IMHO, the 'consensus' approach to man-made global warming (AGW) is a prime example of everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing decisions on speculation, not evidence. (Do I have to repeat - again! - that models are not evidence?) AGW Proponents are pushing their views with more PR than with actual scientific data and conclusions derived directly therefrom. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized: red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat, etc.. This is absurd.

Data are not political: Data are data (or, as Aristotle said, “A is A”, a thing is itself). Politics, unlike science, leads you in the direction of a Belief, whereas data - if you follow where it leads - (eventually) uncovers truth. Yes, by that definition, Politics qualifies as a 'religion'.

Like many, I experienced my early and formative youth at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I crawled under my desk as instructed just in case there was a nuclear attack. (Later, this practice declined for no stated reason, but with the unspoken acknowledgment that such actions were - in the Real World - quite useless: a waste of time and effort; but at that time, *everyone* knew it was the Right Thing To Do.)

Even at that young age, I recognized a world dominated by widespread fear and uncertainty, but held fast to a belief that Science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Politics is a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. Intentions don't matter: A is A.

Science was represented by an international scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to knowledge and new technologies that would benefit all mankind. Science is and has been THE great hope for our troubled and restless world. Beyond extending lifespan, feeding the hungry, curing and treating diseases, expanding communications and the distribution of information world-wide - I wanted science to be, as Carl Sagan said, "a candle in a demon haunted world."

However, I am increasingly disturbed that science has (apparently) been seduced by the lures of political power and easy publicity. Too many of the demons that haunt our world today are actually the invention of scientists. IMHO, the world has not benefited from permitting these demons to roam free. And demands to follow the consensus are at the root of that danger. (Am I the only one that remembers all those movies with a theme of "let the scientists run the world and we'll have Utopia?")

I believe a 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. Whenever you hear the phrase, “a consensus of scientists agrees” on something, hold on tight to your wallet.

The work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with 'consensus'. Consensus is really the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one researcher - whether proposing or challenging a theory - who happens to be Right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What *is* relevant to science, is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Remember: if ONE PERSON (even a non-scientist!) can disprove a theory Wrong - or just a critical element of same - then the theory is FALSE (again: A is A). Personally, I do not consider the track record of 'consensus' as necessarily something to be proud of. ("That's a bold statement: where are your examples, Steve?") Consider:

1. For centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth: one woman in six died, directly related to the fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested the fevers were an infectious process, and further claimed he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes stated puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that simple sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. In fact, there was no agreement on the causes of puerperal fever - despite the continuing deaths of women - until the start of the twentieth century. The consensus took 125 years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored.

2. In the 1920s, here in the U.S., tens of thousands - mostly poor - were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked Dr. Joseph Goldberger to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. He and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes ("Goldberger's filth parties"). Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, to be sure, a social (political) factor in the disagreement - southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. The consensus continued to deny the evidence for years, for no better reason than it conflicted with the prevailing political agenda.

3. Every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at the suggestion of continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology - until 1961, when measurements conclusively presented data suggesting the sea floors were spreading apart. It took the consensus 50 years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And pure politics is not exempt by an inept consensus - review the effect of Lysenko's policies in Russia (from which they still suffer today), Margret Thatcher's 1981 budget (which worked in spite of the review of a host of'experts', Reagan vs. the Evil Empire (which eventually collapsed under the weight of an economic attack, disguised as a military one) ...

A major media embarrassment of using science for advancing political agenda happened in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires (from the first Gulf War) would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." A 'consensus of concerned scientists' rapidly agreed and made many public statements in support of Sagan's position. None of it happened.

… You want more? - Galileo / Copernicus and their helio-centric observations, the Phlogiston theory, Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory, saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy... In each case, the consensus at that time clearly and vehemently came down on what was ultimately the Wrong Side. The list of errors by 'the consensus' goes on and on...

Now, when demanded to bow down to the opinions of 'the consensus' (or other 'appeals to authority'), I ask one to notice WHEN and WHERE the claim of consensus is typically used:

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science (i.e., the Real World data) is not solid enough for close scrutiny.

Today, nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. Nobody says the consensus is that the world is not flat (at least they say that NOW)... It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. There is no such thing as consensus science. IMHO, "consensus science" is a modern oxymoron on the scale of "jumbo shrimp" and "fresh raisins".

If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

… I'll stop here for now. In future posts, I'll try to address the question: “If you can't trust the consensus, who DO you trust?” Also, I'll post notes on the principles and positions for what I believe and support (some surprises there, to be sure). Stay tuned.

- Steve