Consensus Science

[VillagePlank]

... if a group of people have independently analysed something, and come up with similar conclusions (giving a consensus) and someone says "the fact that these people have independently reached similar conclusions is a compelling case for the conclusions being more likely to be right than alternative theories".

I was going to mention that only with degrees of freedom, and chi-squared (since we are talking of independent variables, here) but thought better of yet another intractable post that no one reads

[Essan]

The "consensus" argument can actually have some validity if a group of people have independently analysed something, and come up with similar conclusions (giving a consensus) and someone says "the fact that these people have independently reached similar conclusions is a compelling case for the conclusions being more likely to be right than alternative theories".

Which, over the last 40 or so years, is exactly what has happened in climate science. Hence, the consensus position we are now in.

Even in the 70s I think the majority felt that human activity was likely to cause global warming in the coming decades - though some at the time were less sure.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Rather typical of the approach you adopt sometimes CB - I'll leave it at that.

Of the approach that I adopt?! Did I say anything that wasn't true?!

But you put me in a no win situation. Defer to scientists and I get accused to deferring to scientists or if I say I'm not as informed as the scientists and I get accused of being, effectively, thick. So the option left is to say I know better than the scientists, that they're wrong, and become someone who doesn't accept the science as understood. Great...

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.

There is a scientific consensus, there is no such thing as 'consensus science'.

This one line shows that you don't understand what this thread is about.

I think it has everything to do with it actually. It's a thread that is playing with words.

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?

What is the point of stating the scientific position rather than misleading people?

Dunno, but this is just like one of those irritating children's games where whatever you say they keep asking "why?" ......

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

[Essan]

We haven't got to the crux yet.

Why does there need to be a statement of the scientific consensus view?

Simple. There doesn't need to be.

That doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be though.

It's a simple question. What purpose does such a statement serve? Who is it directed at?

Well obviously that depends on circumstance. In the case of the IPCC making such a comment that it would be aimed at informing the world governments on whose behalf they are working.

What is the statement for?

To state the current scientific position.

Why is there the need to make such a statement?

There isn't a need. What makes you think there is? But it's a useful think to say, especially when dealing with policticians. And otherwise some people may think, "ah but the IPCC are saying all this but I bet most scientists disagree". It's pre-empting an inevitable question.

The other reason is to wind up people who get really het up over such piffling trivial things

Can nobody answer a simple question without getting defensive, sarcastic or pithy?

No

[Admiral_Bobski]

Simple. There doesn't need to be.

That doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be though.

Well obviously that depends on circumstance. In the case of the IPCC making such a comment that it would be aimed at informing the world governments on whose behalf they are working.

To state the current scientific position.

There isn't a need. What makes you think there is? But it's a useful think to say, especially when dealing with policticians. And otherwise some people may think, "ah but the IPCC are saying all this but I bet most scientists disagree". It's pre-empting an inevitable question.

The other reason is to wind up people who get really het up over such piffling trivial things

No

Finally we get to the crux!

The "scientific consensus" on AGW is for the benefit of politicians.

Does anybody see the problem now?

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

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

Indeed, it's for the benefit of politicians- we need to decide upon what policies to implement, and therefore, the policymakers would like to have some guidance on what the problem is and how it should be addressed. This scientific consensus is used to give them guidance.

I don't actually have a problem with this process in itself- what I have a problem with is when the politicians start thinking in black and white terms and trying to stifle anyone who questions anything about the consensus.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Indeed, it's for the benefit of politicians- we need to decide upon what policies to implement, and therefore, the policymakers would like to have some guidance on what the problem is and how it should be addressed. This scientific consensus is used to give them guidance.

I don't actually have a problem with this process in itself- what I have a problem with is when the politicians start thinking in black and white terms and trying to stifle anyone who questions anything about the consensus.

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

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

[Essan]

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.

Not sure that really happens in this case given the huge number of scientists involved in such a huge variety of different areas.

We've all ready seen instances of scientists suppressing the views of those who don't fit in with the consensus

The only view that does not fit the consensus is one stating that human activity has no effect on climate at all. And who apart from those who argue the world was created in 4004BC thinks that?

The only other area that would go against the consensus is if someone proved that there is no greenhouse effect.

[Admiral_Bobski]

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

[Devonian]

Finally we get to the crux!

The "scientific consensus" on AGW is for the benefit of politicians.

Does anybody see the problem now?

:winky:

CB

CB, what do you mean by '...for the benefit of...'?

Edit: ok there is a kind of answer in your next post but I'm just bothered by the word 'benefit'.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

What do you mean by '...for the benefit of...'?

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...!

Edited March 18, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

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".

Inform, yes. But 'not of the state of the science, but rather of the belief of the majority of scientists' is, I'm sorry, imo, 100% wrong way round. Indeed, this may be the crux of our problems here in this thread. I simply can't see how the very many excellent climate scientists I could name are just pedlars of a belief system. But, it becomes very difficult if I think the scientists are scientists not believers but you don't because what could I post that might convince you otherwise and vice versa?

For you to be right someone needs to find better/different science. That hasn't happened and it's not because of suppression but because physics laws would have to be upended. But, again, we have a problem because you see suppression. Again, I don't know how we move forward.

There is no scientific reason why we need to fix anything.

I think there is a lot of evidence that indicate we do need to stop interfering with the worlds atmosphere and it's properties, stop using it as a dustbin for our combustive ways.

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.

:winky:

CB

PS - This post may have come across rather more shirtily than it is intended!

I think the IPCC presented the evidence data and theory in a detached dispassionate, objective way - I really do. Where wasn't it those things?

[Thundery wintry showers]

The only view that does not fit the consensus is one stating that human activity has no effect on climate at all. And who apart from those who argue the world was created in 4004BC thinks that?

The only other area that would go against the consensus is if someone proved that there is no greenhouse effect.

I don't think it's that simple, particularly in the political arena. There is a consensus not only on whether or not AGW exists, but also on its extent (expressed within certain uncertainty bounds by the scientists, which are often removed subsequently by the politicians and the media to "remove doubt").

For example there is a consensus that solar activity accounts for only a small fraction of the twentieth century warming.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Inform, yes. But 'not of the state of the science, but rather of the belief of the majority of scientists' is, I'm sorry, imo, 100% wrong way round. Indeed, this may be the crux of our problems here in this thread. I simply can't see how the very many excellent climate scientists I could name are just pedlars of a belief system. But, it becomes very difficult if I think the scientists are scientists not believers but you don't because what could I post that might convince you otherwise and vice versa?

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.

For you to be right someone needs to find better/different science. That hasn't happened and it's not because of suppression but because physics laws would have to be upended. But, again, we have a problem because you see suppression. Again, I don't know how we move forward.

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).

I think there is a lot of evidence that indicate we do need to stop interfering with the worlds atmosphere and it's properties, stop using it as a dustbin for our combustive ways.

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.

I think the IPCC presented the evidence data and theory in a detached dispassionate, objective way - I really do. Where wasn't it those things?

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

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think it depends on which areas of the IPCC Report we're talking. Much of the main body of the report reads like a literature review and I think it does a good job at rounding up the available literature and summarising the results of individual pieces of work- including the ones that muddy the waters. It may not be perfect, but put it this way, I'm yet to see a better, or even comparably good, literature review regarding AGW.

The main grounds for issues are in the Summary for Policymakers which is indeed guilty of what Captain_Bobski mentions.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think it depends on which areas of the IPCC Report we're talking. Much of the main body of the report reads like a literature review and I think it does a good job at rounding up the available literature and summarising the results of individual pieces of work- including the ones that muddy the waters. It may not be perfect, but put it this way, I'm yet to see a better, or even comparably good, literature review regarding AGW.

The main grounds for issues are in the Summary for Policymakers which is indeed guilty of what Captain_Bobski mentions.

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

[Essan]

The problem with this is that its only purpose is to influence others.

No. It's not.

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.

Exactly.

The point of scientific research is to inform

The fact that some people misunderstand/misinterpret science and use it to their advantage is not a reason to attack or disagree with the science. Which seems to be what you are doing?

Just because the media and politicians misuse science does not mean that the science is wrong!!!!!!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

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.

CB

In its defence I think it is unlikely that any report or literature survey of any kind will be perfect at providing a balanced view. But looking at your points, it seems that what's creeping in here is that the desire to "play the party line" on the consensus front creeps in when marginal calls have to be made (e.g. "do we or don't we include some contentious piece of the argument?"), leading to a systematic bias.

It's much the same as why the top footballing sides get more favourable refereeing decisions than the lower sides- in obvious calls a good referee will make the right decisions, but in marginal calls it's easy to allow crowd/player/manager pressure to influence the decision.

I'm surprised to see instances of this happening in the main report, since the main report often paints a picture of much greater uncertainty than the Summary for Policymakers in any case. But then again, things are rarely black and white, so the existence of it to a much lesser extent shouldn't really be a surprise.

The worst bit, which simply misleads, strikes me as being this:

Can solar activity or other natural processes explain global warming? No. The incoming solar radiation has been almost constant over the past 50 years, apart from the well-known 11-year solar cycle (Figure 5). In fact it has slightly decreased over this period. In addition, over the past three years the brightness of the sun has reached an all-time low since the beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s (Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, 2008). Once again this ignores lag effects, but it also fails to address - in fact it cleverly glosses over - the fact that incoming solar radiation has been at an all-time high for the past 50 years.

I also see niggly bits of confirmation bias appear here and there in the mainstream literature, though on the whole the scientists do a much better job of being balanced than the politicians.

[Admiral_Bobski]

No. It's not.

Exactly.

The point of scientific research is to inform

We're not talking about research, we're talking about the IPCC assessment, which was an assessment of the existing science - no new science was performed for the report, as we are frequently told.

The IPCC assessment is used to inform, but since it is a rounding-up of the relevant science the purpose of the report is to influence people's view of that area of research. The worst part is that is a selective rounding-up of the science, which disregards pieces of legitimate research that don't fit in with the preconceived view of what the assessment should show.

The fact that some people misunderstand/misinterpret science and use it to their advantage is not a reason to attack or disagree with the science. Which seems to be what you are doing?

Just because the media and politicians misuse science does not mean that the science is wrong!!!!!!!

You are still grabbing the wrong end of the stick (and proceeding to beat around the bush with it). I have not, at any point in this thread, said that the science is wrong. I have said that the science is incomplete, I have implied that there is bias, but I have not attacked a single piece of science at all. You can't attack "the science", but you can argue about the validity of individual studies and the conclusions of them. I discuss science on other threads all the bloomin' time! This thread is not about that, and I am certainly not using the "Consensus science is automatically wrong" argument at all.

What this thread is about is discussing the potential dangers of allowing science to proceed under the cover of consensus, and how anti-scientific that is.

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

In its defence I think it is unlikely that any report or literature survey of any kind will be perfect at providing a balanced view. But looking at your points, it seems that what's creeping in here is that the desire to "play the party line" on the consensus front creeps in when marginal calls have to be made (e.g. "do we or don't we include some contentious piece of the argument?"), leading to a systematic bias.

It's much the same as why the top footballing sides get more favourable refereeing decisions than the lower sides- in obvious calls a good referee will make the right decisions, but in marginal calls it's easy to allow crowd/player/manager pressure to influence the decision.

I'm surprised to see instances of this happening in the main report, since the main report often paints a picture of much greater uncertainty than the Summary for Policymakers in any case. But then again, things are rarely black and white, so the existence of it to a much lesser extent shouldn't really be a surprise.

The worst bit, which simply misleads, strikes me as being this:

I also see niggly bits of confirmation bias appear here and there in the mainstream literature, though on the whole the scientists do a much better job of being balanced than the politicians.

I think you're right - scientists certainly do do a much better job of being balanced than the politicians...which isn't saying much! But seriously, as I said on the CRU hack thread a while ago, I do believe that the scientists are generally being honest and they certainly believe themselves to be objective. The problem is that everyone has preconceptions and bias, whether they're aware of it or not, so nobody is automatically 100% objective. You can force yourself to be objective, to an extent, by playing Devil's Advocate or by performing double-blind studies. The problem with a consensus report, like the IPCC's, is that it introduces bias quite blatantly, and most scientists are likely to be subconsciously (or even consciously) influenced by that bias.

Which brings us back to the point (reworded slightly) of "What is the point of the consensus assessment?" If a scientist wants to study solar effects on climate then he should be allowed to do that (and indeed there is no evidence that people are being forced to ditch studies...bear with me here!). But if the consensus assessment says "we know enough about solar effects to be able to dismiss them as being a major factor" then the seed is being planted to make people think "why waste my time and my grant on something that's agreed to have been solved?" By issuing the assessment, the IPCC are effectively stating what the boundaries of the AGW argument are - "this is a more important aspect to study than that is."

It's not an overt declaration of what should and shouldn't be studied, but it does influence what people are willing to spend their time and money on. Furthermore, it marginalises those scientists who study outside of the defined parameters of investigation simply by stating what those parameters are.

CB

[Essan]

But if the consensus assessment says "we know enough about solar effects to be able to dismiss them as being a major factor" then the seed is being planted to make people think "why waste my time and my grant on something that's agreed to have been solved?"

On the contrary, I think it works the other way round. This makes those studying solar impacts a little more determined to make their mark and prove everyone else wrong.

And I am quite certain the recent K/T Extinction study will result in fresh research suggesting that the Chicxulub impact was not the cause

[Admiral_Bobski]

On the contrary, I think it works the other way round. This makes those studying solar impacts a little more determined to make their mark and prove everyone else wrong.

And I am quite certain the recent K/T Extinction study will result in fresh research suggesting that the Chicxulub impact was not the cause

I'm sure that that's true, to an extent.

As a case in point, look at the scientists who are trying to prove that the Sun has more of an effect on Earth's climate than the IPCC allow for. How do the mainstream scientists respond to them? They ridicule them, they tear them to pieces, both professionally and personally. And those outside the mainstream do the same thing in return.

Is that good science?

The fresh research that may come out of the Chixculub consensus is something we'll have to wait and see about, of course. But how many mainstream scientists (those who think the asteroid was responsible) are going to take the outsiders seriously, and how far will they go to preserve the mainstream view?

Only time will tell, but the above example with AGW doesn't set a very comforting precedent.

CB

[Essan]

But where has any research been ridiculed?

Proper research that is - not the likes of Velikovsky or Neal Adams :winky: