Why are AGW doubters so particular about which scientists they trust?

Question

The IPCC report represents the consensus of thousands of scientists, but to be an anthropogenic global warming doubter, you have to doubt this report's validity.

We often see AGW doubters invoke Lindzen or Christy or Tim Ball. Some new favorites are a Scafetta & West paper, and now Carl Wunsch.

This makes me wonder - what makes a person accept one scientist's conclusions while dismissing the conclusions of thousands of other scientists who are all in agreement? Does the principle 'two (or thousands of) heads are better than one' somehow not apply to science?

babab - Is your understanding of climate science better than the understanding of climate scientists? Give me a break. And for the record, I have a Master's Degree in physics.

Answer 1

Once upon a time, a scientist started out with an idea, a theory, and the result is every single thing we take for granted in the modern world. If science is just some left wing elitists trying to control you, some capitalist pig trying to protect his interests, or it conflicts with a religious belief and therefore can't be true - how come it all works?

Before Franklin, some unlucky sap had to ring the town bell to ward off the lightning. Then Franklin showed it's not God's will, its electricity. Here, use this lightning rod. Thanks to Leyden, Franklin, Faraday, Volta, Ampère, Henry, Maxwell, Edison, Tesla and Westinghouse - we have electric power across the world. Repeat this story for everything. Materials. Pharmaceuticals. Airplanes and space flight. Nuclear weapons. X-rays and MRI. Computers. These things all work, and they work exactly as the scientists predicted they would. The exact pathway and details may not be complete, but the effects are real, measurable and reproducible. You can’t see an atom, but if you pack a pellet of deuterium inside a ball of plutonium and implode it with a perfectly timed explosion, the result will agree with e=mc2 exactly according to how much deuterium fuel you used.

The same mathematics, physics and logic that resulted in these real tangible things, used everyday around the world, now says that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic.

The majority of scientists are ordinary people with an extraordinary passion for the truth. A research scientist gets interested in an unanswered question, or an issue that has an unresolved inconsistency. They ask the questions, look at the data and see where it leads them.

When the ozone depletion theory was presented in 1975 the authors were met with skepticism. They predicted the formation of an ozone hole over the poles. No depletion was detected and they were vilified. Every industry and reactionary group came out against them. Then, in 1987, the Antarctic ozone hole was measured at 70% depletion, far in excess of the original predictions. And so today we have the Montreal protocol. You know, I work in the HVAC field and half the guys to this day are absolutely convinced that the whole thing is a conspiracy by DuPont because the patent on R-12 expired. And they vent when they can get away with it. Go figure.

Here is another small example I’m familiar with. Glaxo made billions selling Tagamet for ulcers. Some guys back in the 80’s got interested and decided that maybe bacteria were the real culprit. After having ulcers for years, a patient could take one course of antibiotics and be cured. Unheard of. These guys were vilified and discredited. But you just can’t refute reproducible evidence and now the bacteria theory is the accepted science of ulcers. They have now charted the different intestinal fauna of peoples around the world, which is different depending on whether or not you have been exposed to oral antibiotics.

Does anyone still believe that bell ringing can deflect lightning? Every radical new idea goes through a period of controversy. And then we look at it in hindsight and say “how obvious”! Sooner or later the truth comes out.

I think the confusion that people experience may be caused when they attach the same weight to credible and non-credible sources. Real science is peer reviewed. Peer review is an independent, non-political, non-economic process that cannot be easily circumvented. To have your work discredited because of sloppy data, poor methodology, or outright fraud is a crushing repudiation from which you and your lab will likely never recover. See “cold fusion” and “human cloning”. Reputable scientists don’t do these things and when disreputable ones try they get caught. There are many, many cranks in the world who for whatever reason, be it delusion, politics, greed, dogma or whatever cannot get their “science” published because it will not pass peer review. They go on in life to become independent purveyors of their point of view. Any will remain just one persons or group’s opinion until it gets published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal. When it does get published it will become a legitimate alternate scientific explanation that can fight it out in the world. May the best theory win.

Credible sources will look professional. They will show their sponsors. They will show the associations to which they belong. They may be difficult to read and understand, even incomprehensible at times. Real science is not trivial and cannot always be reduced to a simple statement. Non-credible sources will look, ironically, a lot like this essay. No reputable references cited. No heavy scientific explanations about carbon isotopes or other methods. Just a lot of broad statements that are appealing because of their simplicity, approachability and emotional appeal. They use circular logic that never finds its way back to the basic science. They draw conclusions based on incomplete information or flawed analysis. It is easy to rationalize away or just plain ignore the one crucial bit of information that changes the conclusion and invalidates your argument. They are usually spiked with emotional statements and references to conspiracies. Often it’s just a bunch of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

Real scientists do not do these things intentionally. Passionate people can be blinded by their belief, by the investment of a lifetime in a certain paradigm. But to me the most honorable people are true to science. When the proof comes in, they accept they were wrong and move on. Real science has theory, evidence, logic and conclusions. Cold, hard, brutal and agnostic. You may not like it but you can only argue with it if you understand it and have a better argument. Many, many good people think they understand science but do not.

I myself have been duped. I once was nearly taking in by an energy scam. I wanted the easy answer so badly that didn’t do the homework. Only after I was embarrassed did I stop to take a close look at what I was doing. After I calmed down, I suddenly and very easily was able to find all the information that debunked the whole scam. I came to a very simple and useful conclusion - I was taken in because I did not understand the fundamentals of the subject. Once I educated myself, the hollowness of the scammers’ argument became apparent. And I understood how those that I approached for advice dismissed the scheme immediately and out of hand despite my protests. They understood the nuances of thermodynamics and I did not.

Global Warming is just another scientific theory; one that happens to be the best scientific explanation of the observed phenomenon. It’s just like other scientific theories that explain things like why you get gangrene when a surgeon doesn't sterilize his instruments – germ theory. Why a nuclear bomb explodes – particle physics. Why radiocarbon dating is valid - also particle physics. Why the earth is round and revolves around the sun – astrophysics. Why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – natural selection.

The trouble with science is that you can’t pick and choose which parts to believe.

So the question is not “Do you believe in Global Warming” or “Do you believe in Evolution”. The real question is “Do you believe in science”

Apparently, only up to a point.

Answer 2

Dana, Wunsch is not really a skeptic. Neither are von Storch or Zorita. These are scientists who believe in global warming but are not happy about sloppy science, exaggerated claims and poor statistics by their fellow climatologists.

The number of scientists holding a view has nothing to do with the quality of the science. Truth is not determined by voting. Think about it. If you wanted to know the sex of a cat, would you get a bunch of people together and vote on it? Of course not.

A good number of the alarmists act as if they are hiding something. They refuse to archive their data, methods and source code. Michael Mann would not turn his over data until Congress subpoenaed it. Phil Jones will not even release the station locations in his network. Jim Hanson has always released some data, but not his methods or source code. He recently released some of his code and that was helpful for the skeptics. The NOAA does not release any data, methods or code. Do you see the problem? Science is supposed to be open. As long as these guys act like they are hiding something, it will be difficult for skeptics to buy in.

The best skeptical scientists all archive their data and share anything other researchers need to test and replicate their results.

The best skeptical scientists are:

* Roger Pielke - the most prolific and respected climatologist in the field
* Richard Lindzen at MIT - who hypothesized the Infrared Iris Effect observed by Roy Spencer
* John Christy and Roy Spencer at University of Alabama at Huntsville and keepers of a satellite record
* Stephen McIntyre, author of science blog ClimateAudit (even though he did not train in climate science, he has published in climate science journals and has recently begun taking tree core samples),
* Anthony Watts (a broadcast meteorologist but doing important work in observing the observation system),
* Steve Schwartz at Brookhaven National Laboratory (who recently published a new estimate of climate sensitivity that indicates global warming will not be catastrophic)
* Hendrik Svensmark at Danish National Space Center and the leader in cosmic ray research

Of course, there are many others but these are the most important.

Answer 3

The problem with this statement is that, well, it just isn't true. There are thousands of good scientist who don't accept the belief that man has any impact on the environment.

These fine men like Dr. William Gray are quickly 'swift boated' and muzzled, labeled as kooks who take money from oil corporations even if that isn't true.

In science it shouldn't matter the number of people who accept something as fact. Science is not a popularity contest. It's the facts, the data that speaks. One man with the facts matters more than 10,000 who agree with each other.

This is where "global warming" falls short. No one today can tell you if in 5 years the climate is going to be warmer of cooler. You can flip a coin and have the same result as any climatologist. The science is subjective, and not objective. We have a very long way to go before we understand the climate well enough to say if it's warming and the cause is man or nature.

Answer 4

Thousands, can you prove that?

"Analysis shows just 5 reviewers, none with impeccable credibility, explicitly endorsed the critical Chapter 9 or WG1 of UNIPCC's 4th Assessment Report which claims that humans have a significant influence on climate"

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=1

.
.

Answer 5

Not too long ago, doubters believed that the earth was flat, it would be inconceivable to think it could be round. Well, one thing for sure, the next president will definitely not be a AGW denier.

Answer 6

It is just they we do not trust the IPCC. It is a political body and not a scientific one. They have been many scathing accusations on the IPCC from people within it.

Read these articles:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/ipcc_review_updated_analysis.pdf
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=1
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf

Answer 7

We choose the ones that make the most sense to us.

Answer 8

B/c they're cherry-pickers at heart.
:-)

Answer 9

no- i trust my understanding. it appears that your are not a science student otherwise you will not ask such question.