Address climate change with science, not opinion polls

[Vergent]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017770557_guest19geer.html

[TerryM]

I think the only thing more certain than watching the animals would be watching vegetation changing. Unfortunately for me I know nothing of either.

I do think that large bodies of ice can also serve as unimpeachable indicators of global warming, and these we can all read. When fast ice that has been in place for more than 4,000 years melts - that can't be faked. When a guy in a tiny used sailboat sails through the North West Passage, a journey that cost the lives of hundreds of heroic explorers over hundreds of years - that indicates real change.

I could go on for a while, but I'm sure I've made my point. No one can fake the melting of billions of tons of ice, and no one can hide the open water left behind.

Watching animals migrate, watching plants move north or watching arctic ice melt. The answers are all the same, and they agree with the answer given by all most every climate scientist in the world. It's not that hard - things are getting hot out there - and we are responsible.

[WeatherRusty]

The relative ignorance of the general public with regard to science in general and climate science in particular renders them susceptible to information manipulation. Who to believe, stories on the national media, popular science magazines, newspaper articles, scientific journals, internet websites? The message is mixed and confusing....by design.

The only place which represents the true science is to be found in the peer-reviewed literature and most of the public does not / can not avail themselves to that.

Fortunately, people and their representatives vote on matters of concern regarding the best interests of public welfare. Science doesn't get the final say. Of course, this system only works well with an accurately informed public and in the case of AGW such is not the case.

[Jonger]

The relative ignorance of the general public with regard to science in general and climate science in particular renders them susceptible to information manipulation. Who to believe, stories on the national media, popular science magazines, newspaper articles, scientific journals, internet websites? The message is mixed and confusing....by design.

The only place which represents the true science is to be found in the peer-reviewed literature and most of the public does not / can not avail themselves to that.

Fortunately, people and their representatives vote on matters of concern regarding the best interests of public welfare. Science doesn't get the final say. Of course, this system only works well with an accurately informed public and in the case of AGW such is not the case.

How can peer reviewed information be considering more trust worthy? The reviewing is conducted by those with the same end goal, getting the word out about there findings and securing more funding.

[WeatherRusty]

How can peer reviewed information be considering more trust worthy? The reviewing is conducted by those with the same end goal, getting the word out about there findings and securing more funding.

Well, I suppose if that is your belief, i.e. the scientific process lacks integrity, then there is no standard of truth by which to ground yourself on. Without a fundamental acceptance in the integrity of science how can you trust anything science has to say about how our world works? I think the physical sciences which AGW draws upon have withstood the scientific process quite well as part of the mainstream of scientific thought.

That said, there exists a degree of uncertainty in the scientific method. It is not perfect and there is room for interpretation, but to claim malfeasance, fraud or self interest as big corrupters of science requires some positive proof, not just some implied likelihood.

[PhillipS]

How can peer reviewed information be considering more trust worthy? The reviewing is conducted by those with the same end goal, getting the word out about there findings and securing more funding.

You are demonstrating how little you know about research funding. First, there is no such thing as secure funding. Federal agencies fund only a small percentage of the research proposals they receive. The funding rate varies between agencies but for NOAA only 6 - 7% of proposals get funded. There is absolutely no incentive to go easy on papers being reviewed - which is why, traditionally, peer reviews are kept anonymous. All climate scientists are competing for the same pools of funding and to win you have to be exceptional.

I don't know of anybody who claims that peer-review is perfect - we've all seen bad papers that slipped through review - but it is the best process ever developed for catching and weeding out poor research papers. Can you suggest anything better?

[donsutherland1]

Three points based on the initial article and also commentary in the thread:

1. In a democratic society, it is ultimately the public will that prevails. No policy or program is sustainable indefinitely without sufficient public support. The electoral process allows the public to elect leaders whose policies will generally align with prevailing public sentiment. The gap between policies and public opinion can persist for some time, and even over several election cycles, but it can't persist indefinitely.

2. To build and sustain public support requires building and sustaining public understanding. That process is not straight-forward. Individuals or groups with interests that would be undermined by a given policy--no matter how beneficial the policy might be in the larger context--can be expected to fiercely oppose the changes that run counter to their interests. Their rationale will run counter to the rationale advanced for the policy changes, even if the latter is most strongly supported by scientific or economic evidence. Election year rhetoric notwithstanding, it is no accident that there has been no meaningful attempt by the U.S. to bind itself to some kind of concrete CO₂ target The gap between scientific consensus and public understanding, not to mention exogenous factors i.e., perceptions economic cost-benefit trade-offs, long- and short-term net costs/benefits, etc. act as a constraint on such a policy. The persistent lack of investment in expanding energy options modeled after an Apollo or Manhattan Project has further limited societal flexibility and locked society into a small handful of energy sources, further precluding major policy changes regarding fossil fuels. Lack of alternatives, in part a function of a lack of investment/energy policy strategy, limit societal flexibility.

3. Peer review bolsters the already rigorous scientific method. To reach a conclusion, scientists need to demonstrate in a statistically demanding fashion (often with 90%-99% level of confidence) that the evidence supports their hypothesis(es) to the extent that a conclusion in that direction is acceptable. If those engaging in peer review cannot replicate the outcome of a study, the study's conclusion is called into question. Peer review can expose weaknesses, flaws, and identify additional relevant issues that serve only to strengthen the rigor of the scientific process. Those engaging in peer review have the educational background and professional knowledge to assess the matters they are reviewing. Often their expertise in their field is far beyond the knowledge held by the general public. Hence, the general public is not an adequate, much less superior, substitute for peer review, even if the democratic process gives the general public what amounts to a final say over such matters when it comes to public policy.

[skierinvermont]

Well, I suppose if that is your belief, i.e. the scientific process lacks integrity, then there is no standard of truth by which to ground yourself on. Without a fundamental acceptance in the integrity of science how can you trust anything science has to say about how our world works? I think the physical sciences which AGW draws upon have withstood the scientific process quite well as part of the mainstream of scientific thought.

That said, there exists a degree of uncertainty in the scientific method. It is not perfect and there is room for interpretation, but to claim malfeasance, fraud or self interest as big corrupters of science requires some positive proof, not just some implied likelihood.

I think it's one thing when skeptics/deniers are unable to differentiate from themselves between real science and pseudo science and therefore are not truly aware of the scientific consensus on AGW. This type of skepticism stems from a lack of education, intelligence, or information. I find this kind of skeptic/denier is usually less familiar with the AGW debate and the surrounding facts. With greater familiarity they either come to understand the validity of AGW, or they progress into one of the following two types of skepticism/denial. I think it's another thing when skeptics/deniers are aware of the academic scientific consensus on AGW but choose to dismiss it usually claiming that the entire scientific process lacks integrity. This type of skepticism/denial borders on conspiracy theory IMO. Individuals less familiar with academic settings are usually more susceptible to this kind of thinking but it still requires a fundamental lack of faith in the integrity of the entire academic process. A third kind of skeptic/denier is aware of the academic scientific consensus but believe that despite their lack of training in the field believe that they alone (or they and a few online bloggers with whom they communicate) are able to see flaws in this consensus. I find this kind of skepticism/denial particularly arrogant.

[WeatherRusty]

I think it's one thing when skeptics/deniers are unable to differentiate from themselves between real science and pseudo science and therefore are not truly aware of the scientific consensus on AGW. This type of skepticism stems from a lack of education, intelligence, or information. I find this kind of skeptic/denier is usually less familiar with the AGW debate and the surrounding facts. With greater familiarity they either come to understand the validity of AGW, or they progress into one of the following two types of skepticism/denial. I think it's another thing when skeptics/deniers are aware of the academic scientific consensus on AGW but choose to dismiss it usually claiming that the entire scientific process lacks integrity. This type of skepticism/denial borders on conspiracy theory IMO. Individuals less familiar with academic settings are usually more susceptible to this kind of thinking but it still requires a fundamental lack of faith in the integrity of the entire academic process. A third kind of skeptic/denier is aware of the academic scientific consensus but believe that despite their lack of training in the field believe that they alone (or they and a few online bloggers with whom they communicate) are able to see flaws in this consensus. I find this kind of skepticism/denial particularly arrogant.

There must be a bit of cynic in all of us nurtured by the obvious tendency for humans to not always act in favor of better overall good. Self interest is a powerful motivator over what may be right for the interests of the greater whole.

Should we really expect the fossil fuel industries to act altruistically in the face of potential loss in profits? Back room deals are hammered out all the time to the benefit of the few over the many. Political ideologies promoted by sophisticated think tanks (Heartland, Cato etc.) will stop at nothing to ensure their beliefs prevail. The same with religion. Should we expect the scientific enterprise to behave differently?

Are scientific ideas thrown out for public consumption just to see what sticks? Are there safeguards in place designed to weed out the less than noble intent of the selfish before it is disseminated for public consumption? This is the role of scientific peer-review. What sorts of similar safeguards are put into place by religion? Political think tanks? Industry? Anyone with an agenda wishing to poison the well of public opinion?

[WeatherRusty]

Here is an example of the type of thinking being represented in public opinion polls:

KDupre wrote:

The supposed global warming experts had their emails between them and their programmers released to the media which showed that they were told that the data provided to the programmers did not show there was any global warming. The released emails showed that the scientists made up data for the programmer.

I know this was not well reported in the U.S. but made-up data doesn’t prove there is global warming. The actual facts tell us that the world has been in a cooling period since the mid-ninties.

Global warming and cooling has been going on for millennia and there is absolutely NO PROOF that man is causing any global warming.

However if you want to believe there is global warming, go ahead. Nobody really cares because reality will rule the day.

[WeatherRusty]

Dr. William Gray (of hurricane prediction fame) recommends learning the science of climate change from Blog sites. Get this:

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)

by Bill Gray

Professor Emeritus

Colorado State University

(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)

June 2011

Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW.

To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society’s most serious long range problem.

To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates.

===============================

The power of ideological thinking at work? With this kind of thinking going on in the brain of an otherwise well respected scientist, how can we expect an equivocating general public to respect science as the standard bearer of modern, trustworthy information? If this keeps up are we really all that far from slipping back into the dark ages of scientific respectability and prominence as a guiding light to enlightenment?

[skierinvermont]

That's pretty scary and disappointing to see.