Admiral_Bobski

Yes, the Summary for Policymakers is a scientific travesty, if I may be allowed the superlative! But I would argue that the main report suffers from exclusions as well, as I pointed out in the first of the two links I posted earlier. The thing is, if I may condense my argument somewhat, that the IPCC report is not just a literature review, whether it reads like one or not. It is supposed to be a summation of the mainstream arguments in climate science. It is a document of consensus. The problem with this is that its only purpose is to influence others. If its purpose is not to influence then what was the point in even writing it? To inform? But why do people need to be informed if the intention is not to "tell them how it is" and, hence, influence them. Science is not about influencing others. Science is about the pursuit of truth. It is not possible to influence the truth, and so the presentation of that information is irrelevant. If it is irrelevant then there is no point in presenting it. I hope I don't sound too shirty or preachy about this - I'm trying to put the argument forward as simplistically as I can so that we don't have to run round in circles clearing up semantic misunderstandings, and this means that my comments are coming across a bit bluntly. If they do then I apologise. :winky: CB

Okay, let me rephrase that - "belief" was a poor choice of words. Allow me to explain. I had not intended to give the impression that I was likening AGW scientists with religious fanatics. It is not the state of the science that is being divulged, but rather the prevailing mainstream conclusion. If the state of the science were being presented then that would include all of the legitimate studies that have been performed, including any which "muddied the water". But this is not what the IPCC have done - they have taken all of the consistent evidence and presented that, but none of the contradictory - but legitimate - evidence. The IPCC have given a good presentation of the mainstream view, but because they have omitted legitimate studies they have not given a good presentation of the state of the science. Is it not because of suppression? What about the posts I linked to above - have you had a chance to read through them? And why would laws of physics need to be upended? Which laws? Is it a lot of laws, or is it just the one about CO2 being a GHG? If it's just that one then I can address it (as I have several times in the past). Ah, but that's not a scientific response - it's an emotional response, based upon science. Science doesn't tell us that we need to stop polluting and messing up our environment. Science might tell us that we're polluting and messing up the environment, but science doesn't tell us that we need to stop: our emotions tell us that we need to stop. There is an important distinction there. The presentation of the evidence - and the manner of that presentation - is not at issue. I agree that the IPCC reports read as being dispassionate and objective, but the evidence was presented to influence policymakers worldwide into acting on AGW. But the very act of "presentation for influence" is an emotional act - the motivation is an emotional one, not a scientific one. CB

I mean that the official statement of consensus was delivered for political reasons. To inform politicians (not often the most scientifically-minded of people, at the risk of making a sweeping statement) not of the state of the science, but rather of the belief of the majority of scientists, with the intention of getting the politicians to "fix the world". There is no scientific reason why we need to fix anything. There is reasoning on the basis of science, but that is not really a scientist's remit. That reasoning is motivated by an emotional reaction. The view of scientists being humourless, dispassionate people may be inaccurate in the real world, but that view exists because of the nature of science - detached, dispassionate and objective. When emotions come into science, it reduces the scientists' objectivity, and therein lies the problem. CB PS - This post may have come across rather more shirtily than it is intended! EDIT - in response to Dev's edit (!) by "benefit" I mean "in aid of", "to assist". I'm not suggesting some kind of mutually beneficial relationship with associated underhanded shenanigans or anything...!

Did you bother reading either of the posts to which I linked, Essan?

I finally found that other post I was talking about: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/57726-united-nations-climate-change-copenhagen/page__view__findpost__p__1629015 Examples of solar effects being overlooked or underplayed, apparently (on the basis of the last link I posted) because they didn't fit into the mainstream view of climate change. CB

The post on the CRU thread to which I referred above can be found here: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/57696-cru-e-mails-and-data/page__view__findpost__p__1617955 I'm sure there was another one - I'm still looking for it, but I'll post it up when I find it. :lol: CB

The problem, I think, is that it's a sort of two-way process. The politicians get info from the scientists, then the politicans start trying to stifle the opposition voices. Then the scientists get pressure from the politicians and the scientists start trying to stifle the opposition voices. We've all ready seen instances of scientists suppressing the views of those who don't fit in with the consensus - when the CRU e-mails were leaked I wrote up a detailed post outlining all instances of reference to solar effects, and I came across a group of e-mails discussing the omission of various solar papers from the IPCC report on the basis that they detracted from the consensus view. There was nothing they could argue with the science contained within those reports, nor was there a problem, apparently, with the scientists involved per se - they omitted them because they "confused the issue". That's what consensus science does. CB

Finally we get to the crux! The "scientific consensus" on AGW is for the benefit of politicians. Does anybody see the problem now? CB

Of the approach that I adopt?! Did I say anything that wasn't true?! I have no problem with you deferring to scientists, if you make the effort to engage in scientific discussion - to go on at me about arguing "evidence, data etc etc etc" when I have repeatedly done this and it is you who have not is a bit rich, I feel. This one line shows that you don't understand what this thread is about. And this line reinforces that that you don't understand what this thread is about. You think this is a semantic argument?! If that's all it is then why are you even on here? No. What is the point of stating the scientific consensus position rather than not stating that position? Where did you get "misleading people" from? How is not making an official declaration of something an exercise in being misleading? This is not "one of those irritating children's games" at all. If you had bothered reading my post properly, and had actually paid any attention to what I said, I addressed the possibility of you thinking that by saying that I wasn't being pedantic, that I was trying to get to the crux of the matter. We haven't got to the crux yet. Why does there need to be a statement of the scientific consensus view? It's a simple question. What purpose does such a statement serve? Who is it directed at? What is the statement for? Why is there the need to make such a statement? Can nobody answer a simple question without getting defensive, sarcastic or pithy? CB

First of all I was not talking about you specifically, or about any one person. I said, quite clearly, that the consensus view will not be stifled because there is always the consensus to fall back on - the power of the majority. Besides - and this might come across as a bit of a personal attack, but since you've accused me of belittling you - you have claimed that you don't understand the LI, even when it was in its most basic form. How much of the books and science you have read have you understood well enough to make an informed decision? How often have you actually engaged in a discussion with observations, data and theory? In fact, how often have you said that you think such-and-such is wrong because most scientists are agreed on AGW? Before you accuse someone of being "wrong and rather belittling", take the time to read and understand the point they are making. But where do they get that "evidence, data etc etc etc"? Most people don't have any innate understanding of the evidence and data - they are regurgitating what the mainstream scientists have said. This becomes obvious when the same people who put forward this evidence and data, when questioned on specifics, are unable to actually engage in debate. Here we are, back on the word rather than the concept. You don't need to use the actual word to hide behind consensus. Here's some examples of your comments on other threads: "...this is where we part company because, if you're right, it's a case of rewriting a whole science..." "I'm not sure I'd equate the LI (which afaics, doesn't dismiss the role of CO2) with the whole body of atmosphere science which is the result of more than a century of test, observations and building on the shoulders of giants." " I think AGW is a reality - in that there is and will be amount of human caused global warming because adding ghg to the atmosphere will have a warming effect. I think this is a scientific given, though I know a few people disagree about the properties of ghg's. However, I don't know how much it is or will be, but I accept the prediction because they, to me, make scientific sense." "The IPCC reports are the hard work of many thousands of scientists..." When I have more time I'll see how far back I can go, but you alone (along with several others) have repeatedly fallen back on a deferral to authority. Lots of people do, Dev - I didn't just make the phrase up. Wikipedia even has a page on "scientific consensus" in which they specifically talk about its use in politics. "Consensus science" is science conducted under the acceptance of a consensus. That's a matter of semantics, and has nothing to do with this discussion. CB

Well, let's look at this for a moment, shall we? When, exactly, did WUWT first arrive on the scene? Was it before or after the declaration of consensus? Is the attitude of WUWT, and the supporters of it, a symptom of the declaration of consensus? To put it another way, is WUWT (and various other blogs) the way that it is because of the marginalisation of its position? Does it have to be (or think that it has to be) louder and more aggressive because this "consensus" is being hidden behind, in much the same way that a Chihuahua is generally more aggressive than a Great Dane? The thing is that people of your kind of view are not going to be stifled, no matter how much people like WUWT may try, because they have the safety-net of consensus to fall back on. The WUWT people may distract from the argument you're trying to give, but what about their arguments, which are often ignored and scoffed at not because they are necessarily wrong, but rather because "they're not consensus". And if I could just reiterate that I'm not saying that consensus science is always wrong - it's just not the way to do science. Whoa, hold up there a minute! How many times have I suggested we argue the evidence and the data and the theory? I was one of the first (if not the first) on these boards to explicitly suggest just that. And how often have I, and others, tried to have a discussion about specific details? And how often do those who agree with the consensus actually bother to engage? How often have skeptical objections been disregarded on the basis that "the consensus doesn't agree with you, so therefore you're almost certainly wrong"? I didn't start this thread because I wanted to argue about the AGW consensus. I started this thread because of the report that there is now a consensus on the Chixculub meteor impact's connection with the death of the dinosaurs. I can see the arguments for consensus in the AGW debate (I don't agree with those arguments, but I can see them), but I fail to see the relevance in palaeontological matters. This thread is about "consensus science" permeating science as a whole, which I believe is a dangerous thing (for science). It irks me that consensus science has become so deeply-rooted in the AGW debate, but it is a symptom of the deep-rooted political aspects of the debate. Consensus is, fundamentally, a political concept. So what place does it have in other realms of science, such as palaeontology, where there is no political aspect? CB

And what is the point of that? (I'm not just asking this to be pedantic - I'm really trying to get to the crux of the issue.) CB (Although, if I were to be pedantic then I would point out that the final part of that - "whilst accepting they may in time be shown to be wrong" - is neither a part of consensus nor even implied by consensus.)

Hiya I appreciate that point of view, and I have wrestled with that idea, but I don't accept that it is good scientific practice to bypass problems. Science is about solving problems. Science has a habit of leaping forward when a previously bypassed problem is solved (like when Einstein tackled the problem of the constancy of the speed of light head-on - Newton realised that there was a problem with his theory of gravitation but he bypassed it, even going so far as to note that he left the problem for other minds to tackle in the future). Now, you could argue that Newton's laws served us very well for hundreds of years, and that Einstein's theories only refined Newton's work. But the thing is that Newton's laws (on the scale at which they were used) just worked. There was no real understanding of the laws, only an acceptance that they worked. Einstein's theories gave us the understanding and allowed science to leap forward, ironically paving the way for Quantum Mechanics which Einstein himself refuted all the way to his grave. CB

Because it's irrelevant. Because it shows a complete failure on your part to attempt to understand what this discussion is about. Because it wasn't even an argument - it was an attempt to end the discussion by saying "if you don't like it, too bad". I shall ask just one question, to go alongside VP's (I've asked it before but had no answer): What is the point of announcing consensus?

That's just about the most pathetic argument I've ever read in my life.

I think the difference doesn't really exist - what purpose does the official statement of consensus actually serve? If everyone knows what the general view is then there is no need for the analysis and dissemination of that view. If nobody knows what the general view is then the analysis and dissemination of that view is for the purpose of swaying others' opinions. You don't go about forming a group of people to go through masses of research to form a viewpoint solely for the purpose of letting people know about it. Especially in science, where the majority view is beside the point. Therefore, the official statement of consensus serves one function, and one function only: to silence (or reduce the credibility of) critics of that view. It is a pre-emptively defensive move, building a fortification around the mainstream view to fend off those who disagree. I can't see anything about consensus that is beneficial to science. CB

ha ha I'll reprint this from the IPCC website: The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. By declaring consensus on the basis of a study which determined what was "relevant" for the AGW risk assessment, they defined the parameters of the debate. There's your evidence in black and white. I didn't want to name any names... Information on the skeptic blogs is, by its very definition, not consensus science - if it's skeptical science, and the skeptics are in the minority, then it cannot be defined as "consensus science". Of course, that doesn't make it right (which is not what this debate was about in the first place, so I fail to understand the relevance of this comment). Yes, that would be one way to oppose it - a way that I would not agree with. As I have said, several times now, I am not arguing that the science of AGW must be wrong because it's consensus science: I am arguing that, regardless of whether AGW science is right or wrong, consensus science is not science and has no place in science. A quick question for you: how does the consensus inform anyone, and what does it inform them of? CB

No. No, that's not my point. No, my point is that the act of decreeing consensus on an issue is a cheap tactic deliberately used to stifle broad debate. I broadly agree with TWS, in that a casual comment on the fact that there is a consensus is okay (to an extent - if that comment is being made as an observation then fine, but if it is used as a deferral to authority then it is not fine). The point is that the IPCC's (and the Chicxulub impact team's) whole purpose was to determine where the consensus lay so as to define the parameters of the debate. Anything which counters the AGW argument is not part of the consensus and, as such, is not a part of the debate. People have commented, for example, on the LI thread that they don't think that the LI can be correct because it flies in the face of consensus opinion. This is a clear deferral to authority, and the whole reason this kind of comment can be made is because of the officially-declared state of the consensus. Fundamentally, consensus is a democratic concept - the consensus is the belief of the majority. Science is not a democracy - either something happens or it doesn't, and no amount of belief or opinion changes that fact. Note well that I am not saying that consensus science is necessarily wrong, but rather that consensus science is necessarily bad. CB

You're trying to turn this into the wrong argument entirely. It's not a case of "they should have kept quiet". The point is why did they need to say anything at all?! The majority of people think that smoking is bad, while a minority thinks it is good. Why does that need to be said? It doesn't. An official analysis, conclusion and presentation of this fact would only serve to give the majority the moral high ground, and the only reason there is to gain that is to shut the minority up. Do you not see? CB You are also arguing the wrong point - I am not denying that there is a consensus, among scientists, that AGW is real and correct. A Consensus would not imply that there is absolutely no doubt, because even unanimous agreement counts as consensus. Edit - that last bit didn't make sense, but neither did the comment I was responding to. You can't say "if there's no need for consensus" because, as I say, consensus just is - nobody decides to have consensus: consensus is just the word we use to define the majority view of something. There is always a majority view in any situation, in any question, in any subject that people think about... Consensus always exists, whether spoken or unspoken. This thread is (supposed to be) about the analysis of data for the purpose of determining where the consensus lies, the derived conclusion and the presentation of that conclusion, the sole purpose of which is not scientific but rather only to prove the majority opinion, as if that really matters from a scientific perspective. CB EDIT - I'm starting to wonder if this discussion is too abstract for most people, or if they are making it more abstract than it needs to be...

I think you're still missing the point. What else could the IPCC do other than report there is what there is? It could do nothing. Put it another way: why does the IPCC need to define what the consensus is? What purpose does the statement of consensus serve? I'm not trying to say that "consensus science is wrong" or anything like that. I'm not suggesting that the IPCC are claiming a consensus when, in fact, there is none. What I am arguing is that the official declaration of consensus leads to detrimental knock-on effects for science. The declaration of consensus narrows the mind - it establishes a framework for investigative science, and anything outside that framework is necessarily irrelevant. It stifles debate. It makes it that much harder for people investigating outside that framework to be heard, and that stifles debate and limits (or at least slows down) the advance of science. So, it is not the word "consensus" that I have an issue with. Nor is it the fact that there is a consensus. It is the act of declaring consensus that is the problem. CB

Devonian, the IPCC have declared that there is a scientific consensus on the basis of their remit: The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. The IPCC have declared consensus on the basis of a risk assessment. The fact that there is a consensus is a separate issue, as I thought I made clear in my previous post. Yes, a scientific consensus is different from a religious one, yet the official pronouncement of a consensus has the same effect in both cases - it encourages exclusionism and deferral to a higher authority. CB

So it always freezes up in the Arctic in February. But some years it freezes more than other years. This year it froze more than other years, despite the "huge positive anomalies" we were told of by you and others all winter long. So this year's ice extent is surprisingly good, no? When will I come around to the notion that the "old Arctic" is dead? Maybe when it's actually dead. CB

Wasn't this winter unseasonably warm this year up in the arctic, the cold having been displaced to lower latitudes? If so then hasn't the ice held up surprisingly well under those circumstances? CB

Why is solar moving further and further out of the frame, GW? Did I miss something? CB

That's true VP. I think I've confused the issue a bit by just calling it "consensus science" when the real objection lies not within the fact that there are consensus in science but rather in this new phenomenon of establishing committees whose sole purpose it is to assess the science and then make a pronouncement on what the consensus is (what we earlier defined as "official consensus"). I think it's the formal statement of what the consensus is that is the dangerous thing. After all, consensus just happens. Consensus is the belief of the majority of the community - there is a consensus on any divisive issue, even if it is not made clear. There is a consensus, for example, that there is a God. The majority of people on this planet believe in some form of personal God, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever. There is no official pronouncement on the existence of God (and, of course, just because this consensus exists this is no proof of whether or not there actually is a God). If a committee was formed that officially stated that the consensus was that there was a God, how would that make atheists feel? How much more scornful would the majority be of the atheistic minority (and vice versa, of course)? And how easy would it be for the believing majority to fall back on the old "well, there's a consensus" argument? CB