Author
|
Topic: THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE (Read 590 times) |
|
the.bricoleur
Adept
Posts: 341
Reputation: 7.76
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
 
|
 |
THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE
« on: 2005-05-18 12:47:05 » |
 |
THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE
National Post, 17 May 2005
LINK
Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel
Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's
leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have
come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and
variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate.
They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic
ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which,
according to their calculations, will result in "some small global cooling
over the next couple of years."
I remain decidedly skeptical of such long-term climate predictions.
Nevertheless, it is quite remarkable that the global mean temperature, as
recorded by NASA's global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, has actually dropped
slightly during the last couple of years -- notwithstanding increased levels
of CO2 emissions. Two more years of cooling and we may even see the
reappearance of a new Ice Age scare.
Whatever one may think of these odd developments, the idea that the sun is
the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in
recent years. Last month, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top Earth scientists,
published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that
"empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as
the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as
potential amplifiers."
What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that
they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than
human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world's leading
scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the
leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers
don't exist in the peer-reviewed literature?
According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science in December,
2004, there is unanimous "scientific consensus" on the anthropogenic causes
of recent global warming. Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have
analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either
explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming
trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts, I discovered
that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast
majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. Oreskes
even claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned once in
any of the papers since 1993 and concludes: "This analysis shows that
scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the
National Academy of Sciences and the public statements of their professional
societies. Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the
impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists,
but that impression is incorrect."
What happened to the countless research papers that show global temperatures
were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the
Medieval Warm Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than
today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and
that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the
peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers
(many of them written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have
raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a
"scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such
thing.
In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the "consensus" is not
restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished
scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S.
Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of
the whole idea. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists formally
rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global
warming, emphasizing: "The Earth's climate is constantly changing owing to
natural variability in Earth processes. Natural climate variability over
recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential
human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test
the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural
variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global
climate at this time."
In the meantime, activists, campaigners and a number of scientific
organizations routinely cited Oreskes' essay as final confirmation that the
science of climate change is settled once and for all. In a worrying sign of
attempted press containment, Britain's Royal Society has even employed her
study to call upon the British media to curtail reporting about the
scientific controversy altogether.
Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as
was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate
researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von
Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter
of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the
most recent climatic changes." Remarkably, a research paper about their
survey and some of its key results were submitted to Science in August,
2004. Yet shortly after the paper was rejected, the journal published
Oreskes' study, which claimed a universal consensus among climate
researchers.
The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days
before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently
made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite
clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly
misled the public and the world's media. In my view, such unethical
behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of
scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse
than the editors' refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals
regarding Oreskes' flawed study.
The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is
bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by
critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear
among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and
doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay
action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's
all over for science.
Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University.
Copyright 2005, National Post
|
|
|
|
|
Eris_Quark
Acolyte
Posts: 12
Reputation: 5.00
Rate Eris_Quark
Heathen Freethinker
|
|
Re:THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE
« Reply #1 on: 2005-06-23 21:04:25 » |
|
With respect, I think the term itself is nullifying; "Consensus Science".
aKin 2 fundamentalist faith
Hence the off-spring of the, "I think! therefore I must be right!", cousins!
Then again, chaos is eternal, order disrupts for entertainment. 
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.02
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE
« Reply #2 on: 2005-07-03 21:03:53 » |
|
Articles such as the one which started this thread are typical of someone who has been unable to convince the people who know what he is talking about and turns to the general public, eager to dicuss technical matters. It's what they call "blinding with science". This may result in a bunch of people who believe that they know what they are talking about while they don't, at the expense of proper science.
Take, for example, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, which he mentions in the article. When did they happen, where did they happen, and how do we know? Were they global or local? What other information do we have from the rest of the world at the time? Did I say "at the time"? Did they really happen in a concrete time period or with ups and downs during centuries? Just mentioning them by name creates a simplistic and misleading picture to the educated layman. I'll post more about this in a separate thread.
Benny Peiser, the author of the article, also says that he read "the same set of abstract" and found that they do not agree with the conclusions of a climatologists who cited the same papers. I assume that he expects from the reader to take his word for this. But why would the reader take a "social anthropologists" word (as he signs the article) rather than a climatologist word? And why are climatologists so rare in the Web ring of global warming denial writers.
Which brings us to the topic title, scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is indispensable for science to function. It has a very specific meaning, and is completely different from a policy poll. This stems from the special nature of science, where the experts in a given field can examine the evidence, be convinced or not, or change their previous view. The last case can cause a change in the consensus.
Why is it indispensable? You hear, for example, that Einstein's theory of relativity or quantum electrodynamics have been always scientifically confirmed. Most people are not in a position to judge these claims on their own, for many reasons: Lack of the mathematical or conceptual background needed to understand the papers and/or interpret them correctly, lack of access to the experimental data, lack of the ability to uncover possibly fake data, even lack of time or access to papers from all scientific fields.
Why does the general educated person believe that quantum physics is correct, although he/she is unable to check this claim even if he/she wanted to? It's the scientific consensus: Almost all qualified scientists agree -- even the ones who don't like what quantum physics implies. They were capable to understand and they were convinced.
In the age of the Web, thousands of crackpots or unqualified people publish on scientific matters. Often they misinterpret some concepts in a way which reflects some part of the popular culture, so their writings resonate well with some people's worldview. That does not change the scientific consensus. For this to happen, the experts of the field have to be convinced.
When there is no clear scientific consensus on a subject, the science is not good enough yet. The whole point of the debates between the experts is to convince or be convinced. We expect it from them. Our own critical thinking is inadequate for examining the subject matter; it must be applied differently.
This process does have its pitfalls. I have posted stories too, about ambitious and dishonest scientists, even pranksters, who managed to fool peer review and get fake papers published in scientific journals. They misled, but they hardly created consensus at any point. Another problem is that peer review is sometimes conservative when it comes to new groundbreaking theories. Not always -- papers have been published which changed an entire field -- but it happens.
I don't see any alternative for us common people except looking for scientific consensus. Anyone?
By the way, the Bush administration was recently accused for Lysenkoism by some scientific organizations exactly because he embraces and promotes the opinions of "experts" of his choice, just as Stalin did with Lysenko, a crackpot who was doing "pioneer" work in biology. In that case, Stalin achieved scientific consensus by sending a few thousands biologists to the exile. Today, an administration would probably choose milder ways to intervene, such as financial decisions.
Wikipedia's entry examines scientific consensus from several viewpoints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
