The climate change consensus - what is it exactly?

There is a scientific consensus on climate change. Yes, fair enough. But what is this consensus?

I had lazily assumed that the Government's Stern Report was based on the accepted scientific data. Apparently not.

Last night Radio 4 featured a programme entitled The Investigation (listen here). The subject under consideration was the way Stern had used alarming projections far outside the mid-range used by standard scientific works.

I know it's half an hour long, but I really think you'll find it worthwhile listening in. And there's a particularly funny bit about Chris Huhne too.

Comments

[D Murray]

And Blair & Co wonder why bright pupils chose 'economics', law etc instead of science?
Well apart from other disincentives.....

[H Figueira]

The case for global warming due to greenhouse gases is fundamentally flawed from a scientific analysis point of view.

Whilst there is definitely a case for the implementation of global environmental initiatives, this effort is being eroded in that funding is being diverted from this noble cause to pursue a science-fiction agenda.

The factual flaws in the IPCC reports on climate change include a complete ignorance for the variation in the sun's radiation levels - a blatantly flawed cornerstone assumption. Whilst historical data does indicate a global warming tendancy, the relationship to carbon dioxide levels, is flawed without a scientifically sound explanation for the global cooling that occurred between 1940 and 1980. No proof exists for the continued trend in global warming either.

The IPCC reports are also flawed in that they violate the basic principles of scientific method.
- The principle of open disclosure is not adhered to. There are no references to open data sources.
- Evidence is presented as proof.
- Studies which contradict the consensus have been expressly excluded. Proof ordinarily requires the application of the "null hypothesis rule", namely the elimination of all possible conditions which may account for the "desired" outcome, namely global warming. None are considered.
- Without elimination of other possibilities, the CO2-Global warming theory proposed in the IPCC reports are just that - theories. The error is known in scientific circles as "asserting the consequent", namely, considering the first confirmation of cause and effect as proof of the fact.
- The report is heavily based on scientific consensus. This is flawed in two respects. Firstly, consensus is only valid, if it is auxilliary to a scientifically sound implementation of the principles of scientific method. It is not sound if it is done in lieu of such studies. The last time that consensus replaced science, was in the time of Copernicus, and the consensus was wrong. Secondly, the consensus is constituted of "scientists" who have a definite conflict of interest, in being funded to further the CO2 theory of global warming. Little, if any, funding has been made available to scientists who wish to debunk the "global-warming based on CO2" myth. This is the only proper means of proving the "CO2 cause - global warming effect".

Further, global warming prediction models, (inferior in many respects to weather prediction models), are used to predict conditions years in advance. Extrapolation without confirmation is considered fact. Where is the science?

This is in stark contrast to more evolved weather models, which are 1. highly prone to error and have a degree of accuracy that drops rapidly to the point where weather patterns beyond 2 weeks are unreliable. 2. are able to be updated and refined given that cause and effect is easily and quickly established.

Further, the IPCC report downplays the contributions of non-human sources of CO2 (like volcanoes), and even less to the only means of CO2 reductions, namely the increase in the planet's plant bio-mass. Only plants can get rid of CO2 levels economically. It was expected that given the CO2 containment drive, that special elevated consideration would be given to the protection of forests and jungles.

In short, the whole issue is a complete sham. From the eco-agencies who wish to exploit the science fiction theory, to the jet-set IPCC conferences, to the paper mountains, which ironically, merely add to the so-called CO2 problem they are trying to resolve.

The question, is why all the hype?

Firstly, we have the possibility of the introduction of new forms of taxation and further development of new methods of global financial slavery.

Secondly, there is the possibility of a real attempt to get global economies off the addictive oil-based economic paradigm. Since oil will never totally disappear, just get even more expensive as demand outstrips supply, the time has arrived where previously expensive ecological initiatives are beginning to sound economically feasible.

Whatever the intent, honourable or otherwise, the current implementation is an absolute disgrace to the scientific community, and by no means "scientific" in the true sense of the word.

What is needed, is a real effort to understand the true nature of the problem, the proper allocation of funding to ecological initiatives, the reliance of sound scientific methodologies and a stop to the gravy train.

If the CO2-global warming issue really has merits, after the billions spent on studies, where are the facts?

It appears that not even the consensus knows.