Scepticism on the Rise

The "Science" Behind Climate Science

We were entertained recently on the way to the office hearing a caller address one of the local radio talk-back hosts.  Adopting the tone of a pedant, she informed the host that she had been listening to the global warming denialist propaganda which had been airing on the show.  She introduced herself as a university student who had been busy studying the science of global warming for several years.  She had called up to put the facts and to straighten out the Neanderthal host.

She proposed that the host did not understand science and the vast array of facts and research which lay behind the theory of global warming.  Nor did the host grant that there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the theory was fact, not speculation.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists affirmed the veracity of global warming, she declared.  Before she could proceed further, the host interrupted her and asked, could she tell him and the listeners where that figure of an overwhelming, 97 percent consensus had come from.  She began to umm and arrr.  Then she doubled down to insist that it was doubtless true.  When asked why, she said that she had heard it referred to many times.

Here lies a problem, oft encountered.
  Scientists no longer appear to have been taught the epistemology of science.  Many apparently are not instructed in the scientific method.  No longer does your average jo-blow scientist appear to understand that scepticism is one critical hallmark of the scientific heuristic enterprise.  This tyro, like so many, appeared to believe that truth lay with electoral ballots.  If 97% of climate scientists said global warming was proved, then it had to be the case.

But it gets worse.  The 97% figure turns out to be bogus.  It is simply a "truth" made so by repetition.  The claim that

97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters.  Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, yet so ingrained has the 97 percent consensus claim become that The Guardian has an entire section named after it, and President Obama has cited it on Twitter. [Donna Rachel Edmunds, Breitbart London.]

Now, however, a more rigorous piece of social science research on the state of the "consensus" has been undertaken in Holland.

Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.

The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement. [Breitbart London]

We reckon, however,  that the political push for global warming will attenuate any time soon.  There is too much money at stake.  As they say, when trying to get to the bottom of things, follow the money.  People and institutions have bet the bank on global warming and it will take a while for that bubble to burst.  There is no bigger advocate of a company than a new shareholder.  It's how market bubbles form--and then inevitably burst.

New estimates published by the Climate Change Business Journal put the total size of the industry at $1.5 trillion a year, or $4 billion a day, equivalent to the size of the global online retail market. The figure includes carbon markets, carbon consulting, biofuels, carbon sequestration, renewable technologies, eco buildings and hybrid cars.

The climate change consultancy market alone is worth $1.9 billion worldwide; $670 million in the United States, thanks to businesses need to keep on top of climate policy. And these figures are expected to more than double by 2020.

“Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants,” commented Nova. “They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes.

“So while The Guardian worries about the dark and evil influence of the fossil fuels industry they don’t seem at all concerned about the vested-monster-in-the-kitchen, the 1.5 Trillion Climate Industry. Ditto for the intrepid souls at the ABC/BBC/CBC who think they speak truth to power, but miss the most powerful lobby in the climate debate.”