In this paper some elements are identified that are detrimental to the quality of the current climate debate. These are followed by recommendations for improvement and the proper use of instruments to denounce irresponsible behavior, e.g., selective quotation.
 

[To be expanded]

 

1. INTRODUCTION ON THE CLIMATE DEBATE

 

For many years media have been reporting statements by rep­resentatives of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the use of fossil fuels is causing global warming, with all kinds of harmful implications for mankind. Rarely do media reports refer to the arguments of critical analysis of these ideas by scientists who have concluded that the case of a human effect on global climate is not established. The result is a bad imbalance of the discussion of this issue.

            Consider first the common ground that exists between adherents tot the man-made global warming hypothesis on the one hand, and the climate sceptics on the other – that is, issues on which there is little scientific disagreement. They agree that over the last 100 years there has been an increase of average global surface temperature of approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius. This increase has been measured by weather stations which, because they are mostly located on land, represent only a limited part of the earth’s surface. Secondly both sides agree that over the last 50 years the use of fossil fuels has risen by about a factor of three. And finally, it is also agreed that over the same period, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 30 per cent.

Main area of disagreement between the protagonists in the debate concern the degree to which these phenomena are correlated in the sense of either causality or coincidence. Prima facies, the simultaneous increase in temperature and CO₂ suggest cause and effect. A most important objection of the sceptics is that the much reported 20^th century temperature increase in fact started around 1870, i.e. long before the significant increase of the industrial carbon dioxide. Another bone of contention is the reliability and the statistical processing of observations, on climate related events such as the retreat of glaciers, extreme weather events such as storms, rainfall and drought, sea level rise and temperature rise over a longer period than a century.

Uncertainty also exists about the degree our planet is sensitive to small changes in temperature, mass and energy flows and what feedback the changes cause. One force may reinforce another one (positive feedback), or work against it, thus neutralizing it (negative feedback). If positive feedback is strong the system may run out of control. In the second case a new dynamic equilibrium state is expected which might be slightly different from the current one.

Adherents of the man-made global warming hypothesis attach particular

importance to the so-called radiation balance, whereby the sun emits energy to earth, mostly in the form of visible light, while the earth emits infrared radiation from its surface and atmosphere into space. Part of this radiation is then intercepted and remitted to the surface by gasses in the atmosphere. This process can be visualised as acting like a 'blanket', with the result that the earth is a comfortable place to live. Carbon dioxide is one of these gasses - though by no means the most important one - and a rise of its concentration in the atmosphere can be expected to lead to a temperature rise at the earth's surface. Many adherents of the man-made global warming hypothesis argue that the temperature rise induced by increased carbon dioxide concentration will in turn increase the humidity of the atmosphere. Since water vapour acts (by its higher concentration) as a far stronger blanket than carbon dioxide, the initial warming is reinforced by a positive feedback.

According to an alternative view, several temperature-equilibrating forces are at work, which tend to offset each other. In this view the atmospheric radiation balance is by no means the only mechanism, which determines the temperature at the earth’s surface. We live on a watery planet (70 percent is covered by oceans) and rapid circulation of water through the atmosphere acts like a thermostat. Extra heat flux to the surface, causes evaporation, which on one hand, given the radiation balance, leads to more reverse radiation, but on the other hand, by the evaporation, also acts as a heat absorber. Because more water in the atmosphere also contributes to cloud formation, it shields incoming radiation from the sun, and water returns as 'cooled' rain and snow back to the surface.

The sceptics can roughly be classified into two main groups. The first group follows the IPCC in attributing much importance to the radiation balance, but believes that the IPCC has mis­calculated the size of several effects and thereby created an exaggerated alarming picture. The second group attaches more importance to other processes of energy transport, (e.g., water cooling, ocean streams and solar influences), which, up to a point, offset an increased energy flow to the surface. From a scientific point this is a highly interesting debate.

Unfortunately the emotional passions which are aroused in these debates make discussion difficult to pursue. A third category of  'sceptics', therefore, is potentially conscious of the damage, which can be caused to public perception of science when ‘consensus’ arguments, made in good faith, are ranged against precise and sceptical criticism.  In order to meet the public dismay that such conflicts causes, the IPCC leadership adheres to a single, simple hypothesis on global warming in a way that is contrary to western scientific tradition. In particular the overemphasis on the assumption that increasing carbon dioxide will play a dangerous role in climate change is badly detrimental to the progress of climate science.

 

2. RULES FOR GOOD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE

 

Rules which govern  the behavior of scientists have been established in the United States[1], Germany[2], Denmark[3] and Great Britain,[4] among others[5]. These rules differ in their details. Disciplinary bodies have been established to maintain the rules.

We review below some of the rules of conduct, especially from the point of view of the professionalism that researchers are expected to show. It will be argued that the logic behind the interpretation of science requires respect for certain specific rules, and that this is an even more important determinant of good scientific practice than are the ethical aspects of human behavior.

In a recent study of debates in the environmental sciences^[6] it has been observed that the rules mentioned in footnote 5, have been violated over the last 4 years, without appropriate corrections having been made. Several such violations have also been observed specifically in the climate debate, but so far these have been discussed largely among scientists only on the web. Examples are presented in section 5 below. Since many scientists (and also scientific institutions) today seek publicity for their views on climate issues, rules also need to developed as to the public at large is to informed about cases of poor scientific practice.

Finally it is our view that the most important issue regarding the climate is the extent to which it is overshadowed by dogmatism and by an anti-scientific consensus culture.[7] 

 

3. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE

 

3.1 Controversial ideas in science

Modern science proceeds through theories which are tested by observations. If these do not fit the assumptions, new theories are developed to replace the former ones (see Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn)[8]. In the history of science there have been several long periods where there were two conflicting theories regarding a particular topic, and  because no decisive observations could be made, the alternative explanations remained subject to debate among scientists. These were very interesting periods for the fields concerned, e.g., Johanson versus the Leakeys on ‘the missing link’[9].  Such debates stimulated the development of new ideas, with the result that these periods were among the most productive in the history of science.  However, the ‘law’ that science advances particularly well through conflict cannot be generalized. In several historical cases we see that the debate went beyond the logic of scientific argumentation and became emotional.  New ideas which conflicted with reigning views, affected the authority of the ruling scientists in the field (See footnote 9).

 

3.2 Today’s structure of science

Scientific activity has grown exponentially over the past century, and much leading research is now performed by teams. Many topics are investigated simultaneously by different teams in different places in the world, both collaboratively and in competition. Pure and applied sciences have become interwoven and sometimes cannot be separated from each other. Communication between scientists and society at large has intensified.

Today the overall picture of scientific research  is one of extensive activity, which is characterized by collective rather than individual effort.

 

3.3 The progress of science

Despite the much greater extent of scientific research today compared to a century ago, the number of real breakthroughs is still limited, as is the number of people who make them. Today’s science progresses mainly in incremental steps as researchers elaborate on their own previously published results and build on the work of others, often using a fresh approach. Much research proceeds in small cycles of supposition – test – tentative new supposition. Not infrequently, different research teams gain different insights, and develop different and controversial positions. Scientists communicate with each other through attendance at conferences, workshops and symposia, and especially by publication in specific refereed scientific journals. This communication of results and ideas has become of the greatest importance for the progress of science.

 

 

4. SOME OBSTACLES IN THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE

 

4.1 Science and politics

Over the last 30 years the environmental sciences have had an increasingly and strong impact on politics, and the reverse is also true. Observed damage to the environment requires measures and investments from governmental authorities and also public investment into further environmental research.  Many scientists in the field[10] deliver outspoken opinions on the desired political consequences of the interpretation of their scientific research. As a result scientific and political conceptions become mixed up, which makes the debate on the scientific aspects of environmental issues confusing to the outsider.

 

4.2 Scientific reputation and performance in public

The process is two-way. Society is affected by the results of applied research and also by the potential applications of fundamental research initiated, but society also affects science by asking questions of scientists, and directing funding to specific areas of research. As a consequence, in an effort to gain funding support for their activities, or to further causes in which they believe, many scientists now beat their drum in society at large. Not infrequently such persons seek to impose their own views on social and political priorities.

Such a strong relationship between ‘Science’ and ‘Society’ demands that the public behavior of researchers, especially ‘esteemed scientists’ with a high public profile, be examined. Do such persons maintain the ideals of science, such as objectivity, or do instead use their scientific reputation to manipulate debate and advance their social and political views? From the point of view of Good Scientific Practice, this question has not yet received sufficient attention.

Science and politics occupy two different worlds of thought. A common misapprehension among politicians is that ‘scientific’ research produces certainty. While this may hold for simple measurements, it certainly is not the case to topics that lie near the limits of our knowledge. Complex (non linear) systems, where the law of “predictable unpredictability” rules, which is the case in meteorology and climatology, are particularly prone to competing ‘solutions’. In response, some  politicians, confronted with the Socratic principle of doubt, feel disappointed. Scientists choose to present more certainty or force of conviction than is scientifically justified, and thereby go beyond their professionalism.[11]

 

4.4 The peer review system of scientific journals

Potential scientific publications should be judged on their merits. Important judgment criteria include the quality of the observations made, fair acknowledgement of earlier contributions, correct citation of the work of others, the quality of interpretation, and most importantly, the manuscript’s scientific originality. A manuscript containing insufficient ‘new science’ is usually rejected, not least because its publication would reflect badly on the reputation of the journal. Rejection should also be expected if the claimed new scientific interpretation  is not adequately supported by the manuscript’s contents.

Regrettably many scientists have had the experience of having a good manuscript rejected because it conflicted with the views of a (usually anonymous) referee, or the views of a referee’s circle of colleagues. In most fields of research, authors can seek publication in an alternative journal. However, in some fields the senior researchers - the esteemed scientists - form such a closed circle that a newcomer with a view different from the current established view, has little chance of breaking through. The astronomer Thomas Gold[12] labels such groups ‘herds’ because of their propensity to cluster around a common view and their intolerance of outsiders.

The tendency for referees to favor an establishment view, or to give excess weight to their own work, is not infrequently an important obstacle to the progress of science.

A major identifiable weakness in scientific infrastructure is the limited capacity of science, or society to control the improper exercise of authority by a group or even small minority of ‘esteemed’ scientists. We may also call this dogmatism - the greatest enemy of science. (See footnote 7)

A striking historical example is the deciphering of the Maya script[13]. The esteemed English researcher, E. Thompson, worked on this problem from 1922, but his deciphering was incorrect. This in itself is not a crime – most scientists make mistakes. However, in 1952 a Russian worker, Y.V. Knorosov, published in the Russian literature and presented at a congress in Copenhagen (1958) the beginnings of a new Mayan translation that is now considered to be correct. Starting in 1953, Thompson cannonaded the Russian with illogical arguments and inflammatory writings, such as “Has Knorosov any scientific honour? The answer is clearly No […] The so called decipherment is a Marxist hoax and propaganda ploy”. Although Knorosov received support from a Swedish linguist, “during Thompson’s lifetime it was a rare Mayan scholar who dared to contradict the Grand Panjandrum on this, certainly not in print” (reference 13, page 253). Thompson’s attacks and his negative influence continued until his death in 1975. Since then Mayan deciphering using Knorosov’s scheme, has progressed rapidly, and by 1992 eighty-five percent of all Mayan texts could be read. Thompson’s influence had retarded progress for some 20 years.[14] [15]

In the next sections we shall outline some similar dogmatism and destructionism may also occur at lower levels in the current scientific structure.

 

4.5 Reputation and ability to judge

One traditional way in which to judge a scientific reputation was to note invitations to deliver keynote speeches at important congresses. However, over the last 20-30 years the frequency with which a scientist’s papers are cited by others has been increasingly used as a measure of a scientist’s worth. This score, known as the citation-index, is calculated from comprehensive literature citation databases compiled by an American company, the Institute for Scientific Information.[16] In this way a complete ranking of ‘savants’ can be established.

The overall judgment of a scientist’s worth is mainly based on quality assessment by his or her peers. In most fields this works quite well, but it is strongly dependent on the personal capacities of those who make the judgments. Here we have a dilemma. Esteemed and competent scientists are not necessarily a good judge of others, good reviewers of new ideas, or good judges of the direction in which science might progress.

Effective review requires the reviewer to be honest and careful, to have a sound knowledge of the literature, and especially, to employ a skeptical frame of mind that questions whether things really are as they appear. It is also important that the reviewer is modest with respect to the value of his own viewpoint. According to a thorough social study on ‘Scientific Excellence’, modesty is not necessarily a typical quality in the character of a scientist. [17]

An especially important issue is that a referee’s high level of specialization may lead to a shortsighted evaluation. Many fields of research now involve a multidisciplinary approach, and consequently require an ability to look beyond the boundaries of one’s own particular experience. There are examples in the history of science where newcomers in an established field were treated ungraciously, and hampered by esteemed scientists in that field[18].

 

5. AN EXAMPLE OF CHECKS ON SUSPECTED POOR SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE.

 

            Though citation analysis is now widely used, even for promotion decisions, it nevertheless has several limitations. These includes (i) self citation or “cosy group” citations (ii) papers that are faulty and heavily criticized score high citation counts, (iii) citation analyses can be unfair when used to compare researchers in different fields, - number of citations bears a strong relationship to the number of practitioners – (iv) similarly researchers located in remote geographic areas may be disadvantaged by the small number of persons interested in their ‘regional’ research, and (v) review of technique papers, which often require little originality compared with ‘new contribution papers’ tend to be over-cited.

            “Climate change” research has been a notoriously controversial subject for the last 20 years. An authoritarian orthodoxy that global warming is occurring, led by the IPCC, has been adopted by many former leading climate change scientists. Questioning this authority many web sites exists at which issues related to climate change are discussed daily among  ‘climate skeptics’.[19] Recently, a web site was opened by a number of IPCC supporting scientists who feel ill treated by these skeptics,  who name themselves ‘real climate scientists[20]. 

In the annex five major complaints are presented in some detail, which concern the consensus culture, selective use of data, the occurrence of extreme weather events, the use of climate models and lastly the insights arising from neighboring disciplines, e.g., complexity theory.

 

 6. IMPROVEMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR JUDGEMENT AND CONDEMNATION OF VIOLATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

 

Here suggestions are presented how to develop some ‘traffic rules’ among scientists about how to handle controversies which involve doubts about scientific integrity. Recent observations on the climate debate suggest that it is highly improbable that all participants would agree on a single set of rules. Moreover, it seems a hopeless task to change the opinion of those, who are convinced that current climate change will result in a catastrophe, and/or to open their minds to alternative views. It is even more difficult to get such people to consider the possibility that their rigid attitude might be detrimental to the progress of science or  – in particular cases - even constitute reprehensible conduct from the point of view of science philosophy, rules for good scientific practice, or expected public performance from scientists.

However, those who criticize and oppose such rigid attitudes have a special responsibility to adhere to the strong principles that guarantee the quality of a scientific or public debate. These principles include presenting sufficient sustaining evidence and logical reasoning, consideration of alternative points of view and openness to have one’s work subjected to critical analysis.  For criticism to be valuable, the expression of just a personal opinion will not suffice.

Many opponents of the current mainstream view on catastrophic climate change, even when their arguments are well founded, will nevertheless have experienced the feeling of being a ‘voice in the wilderness’. Therefore, it is also necessary to prepare an inventory of the available instruments that make an opposition effective, other than raising questions in web discussions or the media. The latter two instruments usually end at best in conclusions like “we agree to disagree” but frequently and regrettably contain ad hominem attacks, and or unfair references to the opinions of others.  The result seldom advances science, public debate or the reputation of protagonists.

 

6.1 The meaning of being responsible

            In considerations of good scientific practice, much emphasis is put on the individual responsibility of the scientist. (See footnote 1). However, that responsibility should be shared by scientific institutions and their directors, whose job it is to maintain rules of good scientific practice. (See footnote 2). One common manifestation is the creation of disciplinary bodies (cf footnote 2)

            It should be clear that the attribution of responsibility can only have a meaning if scientists and institutions are held accountable. Therefore, individual scientists who are suspected of irresponsible behavior should be called to account by their administration or by a specialist disciplinary body. (Specialized in maintenance of good scientific practice). Consequently, complaints regarding alleged irresponsible behavior by individual scientists should be directed first to the senior officer of their employing institution. 

 

6.2 Complaints and their handling

The handling of complaints, requires in itself strong rules or procedures to protect honest scientists against false accusations. From experience it is well known that a large percentage of the allegations lodged with disciplinary bodies do not result in verdicts of misconduct[21]. Therefore, in a sense the allegations of misconduct have been more detrimental to the image of science (when widely published) than have been the relatively few cases of real scientific fraud.

             The first prerequisite of an accusation of irresponsible behavior or scientific misconduct is that it should be well documented. One might expect such a complaint to follow lines of logic, and organization, normally used in a scientific paper.

            A second condition that is recommended that any complaint should  in the first instance be made in confidence, in order to protect the accused from being witch-hunted. This condition is provided for in the rules and procedures of many disciplinary bodies.

            A third point to consider is that both complainant and accused should have the right to appeal if they are not satisfied by the initial judgment of the local authority. It is for this reason the a national board of appeal (LOWI) in the Netherlands, has been set up jointly by the Royal Academy of Sciences, the National Research Agency and the Council of Universities. (See footnote 5).

 

6.3 A rejected alternative that could be amended

            Many research institutions, even distinguished ones, show a tendency to cover up misbehavior of their employees for the obvious reason of not wishing to loose face or damage their reputation. Therefore, it has been suggested in several scientific circles (web discussions, unpublished) that an independent international disciplinary body to be established, to judge misconduct, especially with respect to performance of scientists or action groups in public. This proposal is rejected by many scientists, because it would institutionalize a new kind of peer-review system, for which drawbacks have already been mentioned. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine who should appoint the ‘judges’ with particular scientific expertise to such an international body.

            However, a Board of Appeal need not be composed of scientific experts. The board could restrict itself to the consideration of the proper application of the local institutes’ rules. If they were found not to have been applied properly, the Board would request the judging local body or authority to reinvestigate the case. The members of such an international body need not, and indeed should not, have an affiliation to the sciences, but should be recruited from the legal, philosophical and social disciplines.

             There still remains the question who should set up such a board of appeal? A likely candidate is the International Union of Scientific Societies. This Union carries a responsibility to maintain a high standard of scientific integrity in all sciences, for it is the “roofing” organization of the various other international unions of a diversity of disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and earth sciences.

 

6.4 The nature of the various complaints that have arisen in the climate debate.

           

The most common science-related complaints fall into four different categories:

(1)   Real scientific fraud

(2)   The presentation of false information when applying for funds

(3)   The public presentation of pathologically one-sided view on a public issue of  importance. (Such a view might stem from deliberate dishonesty, misuse of authority and/or lack of respect for alternative scientifically based views).

(4)   The use of selective, unfair or prejudiced criteria by editors of scientific journals in their adjudication on what to publish, and what, if any, corrigenda are required.

As a fifth worry it should be mentioned how the writers of documents ‘for policymakers’ for the IPCC have misused scientific advise that they were given. Policymakers as such are beyond scientific dispute. But scientists referring to incorrect policymaker papers are not, and could held account under  (3) above. 

Cases of clear scientific fraud are rare. There is no indication that they occur in any one branch of science more frequently than in others. They are particularly serious if they have social (psychological and economical) consequences, and that is a major reason why in medicine and clinical psychology disciplinary bodies have been created which can punish such misconduct. In the various countries where disciplinary bodies have been set up for science in general, most of these bodies restrict themselves to the judgment of misconduct as such. Measures to be taken against proved offenders are left to the decision of the administration of the research institutes involved. From the point of view of scientific progress, the major measure that can be expected is the publication of a brief statement that a publication with false data or irreproducible results is retracted, with an indication that no further reference should be made to it. This action needs not to be left to the scientific journal (and its referees) (See also (4)). Rather an initiative is expected from the involved scientific institute or funding body.  

It is less obvious how to deal with complaints of type (3), because it is not yet general practice for disciplinary bodies to deal with this kind of suspected irresponsible behavior.  The matter is a delicate one, because principles of  freedom of speech are involved. But the matter is also a very important one, which did not turn up for the first time in the environmental sciences (see reference 6). If the principle is accepted that administrations are responsible for the maintenance of good practice, complaints type (3) should be addressed primarily to these administrators, and probably more in a questionable form than an accusing one: ‘does your organization comply with the disputable pronouncement and its way of phrasing?’ If not accepted, or if compliance is expressed, then this is a good reason to bring the dispute in the open (in the media), not least because the complaint arose from a former public statement.

 

 6.5 The restructuring of the scientific dialogue and the public debate

            In summary it is proposed that when  scientists feel the need to raise complaints against another’s scientific or public performance, (a) these are appropriately sustained with evidence, (b) are first discussed in camera, (c) then are brought to the attention of the appropriate mediating or judging body, and (d) publicity is delayed until a decision has been made.

The essence of the proposal is that it provides a mechanism to avoid scientists tumbling over each other in public on controversial issues without careful argumentation, which is confusing to the public at large and to policy-makers.

Publicity is not necessarily avoided at the end of the procedure, especially when the complaint concerns a public statement, or when parties continue to disagree. But a premeditation of any publicity must be that the arguments of all parties are fairly presented.

If an accused person ignores the complaint or refuses its discussion within a reasonable time, step (b) is passed over. And the same applies to steps (c) if the mediating body refuses to intervene or to present a statement.

            The most frequently heard complaints in the climate debate concern public statements (i) that refer to a consensus opinion, (ii) that are insufficiently sustained by rigorous arguments and (iii) that use selective quotation from the literature or of other persons.[22]

            Statements in papers from a body such as the  IPCC or its officials, receive a seal of authority. To contest this, a clearly argued paper should be published. This paper can provide  ‘scientific’ evidence, which is then referred to in further scientific dialogue or public debate. Therefore proper analysis requires that reference be made to both sides of the discussion.  .

            A similar situation arises on the national levels with papers from local governmental agencies and ministers. Again, a well-documented contra-paper should be produced. At the federal level of the US,  the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA) is helpful. It requests proper use and handling of data, also by official institutions.[23]

 

6.6. The major elements of a complaint and its refutation

            In countries where rules for good scientific practice have already been institutionalized, the requirements for a complaint or a refutation, and which conduct may be subject of investigation, are specifically defined in more or less detail. Here, is once more emphasized that both complaints and refutations should be presented in as much detail as possible, and based on logical reasoning. Emotions and ad hominem attacks should be avoided.

            Where there do not exist such rules for good scientific practice and maintenance of scientific integrity locally, the generally accepted starting point to indicate a violation is the proof of intent to deceive, e.g., use of fabricated data, misuse of statistics, selective quotation, with emphasis on intent. All people, also scientists, make mistakes and these are not necessarily fraud. They may be due to incompetence or ignorance.  It is essentially the intent to deceive which is reprehensible to scientific conduct.

ANNEX TO SECTION 5

 

5.1 Taking refuge in consensus

The claim that a consensus of scientists believe the dangerous global warming is occurring, is probably the most outspoken feature of the climate debate. An ancillary argument is that only peer-reviewed literature can be relied upon as a reliable source for scientific information. Almost all scientists involved in the work of IPCC assert that the number of opponents of this ‘official’ view is negligible, and that these opponents do not publish in the ‘official’ literature. One seldom sees reference made to the so called ‘Oregon petition’ (or, when refereed, it is only belittled) a protest by 20,000 Americans against the Kyoto protocol. The scientific base of the petition is presented in the official literature[24] and in similar critical papers elsewhere[25] [26], which give access to the sceptical literature. Neglect of such published works, and strong counter opinions, by the IPCC consensus culture, is also demonstrated by the short list prepared by Hoyt of articles in the peer reviewed literature in which different conclusions were reached than in the IPCC reports. [27] And as long ago as 1997, Stevenson made the comment that ‘since 1992, I have personally noted more then 2,800 papers that contradict (human-caused) global warming[28]

A recent striking example of attempting to preserve the consensus culture was the  attempt by Naomi Oreskes[29] to use citation data as the basis for the claim that there is 100 per cent agreement among scientist regarding the reality of human-caused global warming.

[quote]: Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change". Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science.  Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

 

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise". The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue".

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[unquote].

 

Benny Peiser, who is hosting the CCNet, which reproduces and comments all kinds   of catastrophic forecasts [30] noted:

[quote]:  Admittedly, this looks like extremely compelling evidence. A 100% record of 'scientific consensus' on anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational finding indeed.

However, a search on the ISI database (http://www.webofscience.com/) using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that less than 10% of the listed, peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (11,915 in total) were selected for review. Yet it remains completely mysterious on what basis this selection took place. What ever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period

than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modelling are highly questionable? As most CCNet readers are well aware, CO2 Science Magazine alone has referenced and reviewed

many hundreds of papers critical of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.htm).

[unquote].

 

Consequently, the ‘Oreskes case’ appears to be an obvious case of the manipulation of data by the deletion of unwanted observations. (See foot note 5, point 3).

 

5.2 Selective use of data

An early case of selective use of data by Callendar[31] was analyzed by Jaworowski et al[32] based on observations by Fonselius et al[33] (see figure 1). From carbon dioxide data that were available to him Callendar ‘selected’ for his calculation of the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the points marked as squares. He concluded that for the period 1860-1940 carbon dioxide increased from 292 to 325 ppmv. Meanwhile, Fonselius indicated that carbon dioxide concentrations ranged over the same period from about 250 to 550 ppmv, as indicated by ice cores data.  Jaworowski et al doubted that the ice cores data ‘tell a true story’  because of redistributions of elements, isotopes and micro particles in situ because of contingent difficulties with sampling.[34]

 

 

Figure 1. Average atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in the 19th and 20th century. Redrawn from Jaworowski et al.

A more recent example of doubt regarding the proper use of data is the ‘Mann’ et al ‘hockey stick’ analysis of proxy temperature data over the last 1000 years.  In a paper in Nature[35] ,  ‘proxy’ data (mainly tree rings analyses) were used to estimate that over the last decades the global average temperature had never been so high as before.  The reliability of some of these proxy data had been contested by palaeontologists before  publication of this paper[36] , e.g., Esper. Mann defended his interpretation of the data but his arguments were refuted[37]. Early in 2003  two statisticians (abbreviated as M&M) came into the picture early 2003[38] again contested Mann et al’s selection of data, and also provided detailed criticisms of the algorithms employed for analysis. This work led to an extremely lively discussion on the web, of which a full account is available, though only from the point of view of M&M.[39]. Recently a group of scientists, which name themselves the “real” climate scientists, (including Mann) opened a website on which ‘sceptic’ views are challenged. Among other discussions, the Mann versus MM debate, was commented on in the following terms:[40]

[quote] “False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). Spurious criticisms of the Mann et al (1998) study were first made by these individuals in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal "Energy and Environment" and later, in a separate comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor. The latter criticism has nonetheless been posted on the internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell). The claims of the authors, which hold that the "Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artefact of the use of series with unfilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis ("PCA"), are readily seen to be false, as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were unfilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative 'correction' by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artefact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called 'correction' by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.”[unquote]

In the meantime most of the above has been shown to be wrong[41], but probably more important is that Mann has consistently refused to disclose the algorithm he used to analyse his data. This makes his results irreproducible and the disputed paper should be retracted.

 

5.4 The case of extreme weather events.

The attribution of recently occurring extreme weather events to human-caused climate change, in the media and oral presentations, without adequate reference to the literature, is probably the single most disturbing element in the public commentary on climate change. For example, the official scientific report of the IPCC says:[42]

 

“There is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased in a global sense, through the 20th century, although data and analyses are poor and not comprehensive. On regional scales there is clear evidence of changes in some extremes and climate variability indicators. Some of these changes have been to greater variability, some have been towards lower variability”

(IPCC 1996 173 Working group 1)

Berz wrote on behalf of Munich Re:

“In the last decades, the international insurance industry has been confronted with a drastic increase in the scope and the frequency of great natural disasters. The trend is primarily attributable to the continuing steady growth of the world population and the increasing concentration of people and economic values in urban areas. An additional factor is the global migration of populations and industries into areas such as coastal regions which are particularly exposed to natural hazards. The natural hazards themselves, on the other hand, have not yet shown a significant trend, in spite of a number of indications.”[43]

 

And a report of these reinsurers commented:

“Since  1970 the extent of natural and man-made catastrophes covered by Swiss Reinsurers has increased. This reflects bigger potential losses to

-          higher population densities

-          more insured valuables in endangered areas

-          higher concentration of values in industrialized countries/

(Sigma 2/2000 Swiss Reinsurance Company.)

An American study of damage caused by hurricanes, floods and tornadoes

“did not show an increase during the 1990s, revealing that weather changes were not the principal cause of more catastrophes. The high losses and numerous catastrophes of the 1990s were largely the result of social changes and not to weather changes”[44]

Graphs of hurricane frequency (and also supposed sea-level rise) were presented in the comprehensive article by Soon et al[45] who commented that:

 “Figure 16 shows the number of severe Atlantic hurricanes per year and also the maximum wind intensity of those hurricanes (1940-1996). Both of these values have been decreasing with time”[46]

 “Figure 15 shows satellite measurements of global sea level between 1993-1997. The reported current global rate of rise amounts to plus 2 mm/y., and this estimate is probably high.  The trends in rise and fall of sea level in various regions have a wide range of about 100 mm/y, with most of the global showing downward trends. Historical records show no acceleration in sea level rise in the 20th century” [47]

Though some of these references are several years old, a more recent review shows that extreme weather events have not been increasing over the last 5 years:

The summary of this paper reads[48]: “The global warming debate as presented by the media usually focuses on the increasing mean temperature of the earth, associated extreme weather events and future climate projections of increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide.  In reality, the climate change issue is much more complex than an increase in earth’s mean temperature and in extreme weather events.  Several recent studies have questioned many of the projections of climate change made by the IPCC reports and at present there is an emerging dissenting view of the global warming science, which is at odds with the IPCC view of the cause and consequence of global warming.

Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the sceptics or opponents of global warming appears much more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming.  Further, the projections of future climate change over next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.”

And further:

“ A number of peer-reviewed studies cited in IPCC (2001) appear to suggest a global warming/extreme weather link, however a close inspection of available data does not provide any evidence of such a link in this point of time”[49]

            So the conclusion cannot be avoided that a distorted picture of increasing weather events has been presented, by those who wish to correlate such occurrences with climate change.

 

5.5 Use of ‘models’ as evidence

 

Chapter 2 of Working Group III of IPCC describes the origin and nature of future climate “scenarios” considered by their expert subcommittee which show raises of global temperature of 2.0 – 4.5 ⁰C by the year 2100. 

Each “scenario” is in fact an imaginary “storyline” that includes assumptions about how the world, civilization, history and energy use will develop in the next 100 years.  There is no limit to the assumptions that may be made about the state of the world in the year 2100, and the authors claim their scenarios are “neither predictions nor forecasts”.  But if the scenarios are not predictions and not forecasts, then they have no practical use, and one is left to wonders why Klaus Toepfer – head of the UN Environment Program – said of the IPCC chosen scenarios that they “should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community.” [50]  This is usually the ‘news’ that reaches the public at large. Unfortunately some scientists also refer in a similar way to these exercises.

The background of the IPCC climate scenarios is formed by ‘Global Circulation Models’ (GCM) and ‘Integrated Assessment Models’ (IAM) developed by computer scientists. Their quality was studied in detail by van der Sluijs[51],  and he concluded “that the major problem with the models is, that our current knowledge and understanding of the modelled system of cause effects chains and the feedbacks in between is incomplete and is characterized by large uncertainties and limits to predictability. The available IAMs do not really integrate the entire causal chain, nor do they take dynamically into account all feedbacks and linkages between the different stages of the causal chain which are believed to be potentially significant”. According to van der Sluijs there is, however, agreement among the specialists that IAMs are not truth-machines and cannot reliably predict future climate and its impacts. “IAMs are heuristic tools. IAMs are capable of testing sensitivity, of answering ‘what if” questions (although each answer has to be followed by ‘given the total set of assumptions of this model’) of ranking policy options, of assessing the relative importance of uncertainties, of identifying research priorities and of providing insights that cannot easily be derived from the individual natural or social science component that have been developed in the past.”

Nevertheless the models are being used, and sustained by scientists, to directly address policy questions.

 

5.6 The neglect of insight arising from neighbouring disciplines and science philosophy.

            This is probably the major complaint that has arisen with respect to the quality of the current climate debate. It concerns especially the new insights from complexity theory and the philosophies behind it.[52] Although the IPPC mentions “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate system is not possible”[53], this view has not been promulgated as an important element in IPCC publications and public statements.[54]. This is the more surprising because the principles of complexity theory are well recognized in other disciplines, which deal with non-linear complex systems such as biology and economics.

The earth climate system is extremely complex with all kinds of waters and winds moving all the time in intricate patterns.  The determination of global averages is not much help to understanding this complexity.  And complexity theory is as yet not of much help either because the quantitative values of the forces at work are difficult to measure.  But the logical principles behind complexity theory should alter the way we think about how questions concerning climate change can be approached.  And this alteration comprises in particular the way to think about cycles and their stability (about the dynamic equilibrium states). A most important question, which should be asked all the time, is, if two or more phenomena coincide, is there a causal relationship? In this respect the reference to extreme weather events increasing in response to a few 1/10 degrees temperature rise over land, is particularly unlikely to be true.