Arguments
Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Posted on 11 March 2010 by angliss
In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). This was an attempt to by the OISM to claim that there were far more scientists opposing AGW theory than there are supporting it. This so-called petition took on special importance coming after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Working Group 1 (WG1) report on the science and attribution of climate change to human civilization.
The WG1 report was authored and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists with varying expertise in climate and related fields, and so having a list of over 30,000 scientists that rejected the WG1’s conclusions was a powerful meme that AGW skeptics and deniers could use to cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions and, indirectly, on the entire theory of climate disruption. And in fact, this meme has become widespread in both legacy and new media today.
It is also false.
According to the Petition Project “qualifications” page, “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” The fields that are considered “appropriate” by the OISM are as follows:
- Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography
- Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics
- Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
- Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
- Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
- Medicine: medical science, medicine
- General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science
The OISM’s qualifications for being a “scientist” are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? How many of these names are working climate scientists instead of science or math teachers or stay-at-home-mom’s with engineering degrees? How many of these people has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on climate? How many people took a look at the card that served as a “signature” (click on the image to see a larger version) and realized that they could lie about having a science degree and their deception would never be discovered?
At this point it’s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM’s word that they’re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility.
Unfortunately, the OISM’s list has had its credibility fabricated for it by individuals and groups as diverse as Steve Milloy of Fox News (see this link for a S&R investigation into the background and tactics of Steve Milloy), L. Brent Bozell of conservative “news” site Newsbusters and founder of the conservative Media Research Center, Benita M. Dodd of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, the libertarian/conservative site American Thinker (a site that has regularly failed to fact-check their AGW posts), conservative commentator Deroy Murdock (who works on Project 21 with the wife of one of Steve Milloy’s long-time associates), RightSideNews, Dakota Voice, Dennis T. Avery of the Hudson Institute, Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, Michelle Malkin, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to name just a few of the better known. As a result, the OISM’s petition has been elevated to a level of credibility that is arguably undeserved.
While it’s not possible to test the validity of OISM list directly, it is possible to test the conclusions that have been drawn from the OISM list. Specifically, we can test what percentage the 30,000 “scientists” listed on the OISM petition represent when compared to the total number of scientists in the U.S. And we can then compare that to the percentage represented by the 2000 IPCC AR4 WG1-associated scientists as compared to the estimate number of U.S. climate-related scientists.
According to the OISM website, anyone with a Bachelor’s, Master’s, or Doctorate of Philosophy in a field related to physical sciences is qualified as a scientist. In addition, the OISM sent the petition cards pictured above only to individuals within the U.S. Based on this information, we can us the OISM’s own guidelines to determine how many scientists there are in the U.S. and what percentage of those scientists are represented by the OISM petition.
The U.S. Department of Education tracks the number of graduates from institutions of higher education every year, and has done so since either the 1950-51 or 1970-71 school years, depending on what specifically the Dept. of Ed. was interested in. This data was last updated in the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008. We’re specifically interested in the number of degrees that have been awarded in the various scientific disciplines as defined by the OISM in the list above. This information is available in the following tables within the 2008 Digest: 296, 298, 302, 304, 310, 311, and 312. Table 1 below show how many graduates there were in the various categories defined by the Dept. of Ed. since the 1970-71 school year (click on the image for a larger version). The numbers have been corrected to account for the fact that PhD’s will usually have MS degrees as well, and that both are preceded by BS degrees.
As you can see, Table 1 shows that there were over 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year. This is a conservative estimate as illustrated by the 242,000 graduates in biological and biomedical sciences from 1950-51 through 1969-70 alone, never mind the 166,000 engineering graduates, and so on. Many of these individuals are still alive today and would be considered scientists according to the OISM definition thereof.
The OISM website lists how many signatures they have for scientists in each of their categories. Given the number of graduates and the number of signatures claimed by the OISM, we can calculate the percentage of OISM-defined scientists who signed as referenced to the total. These results are shown in Table 2 below.
In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.
However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.
However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.
13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.
We can, however, compare the number of atmospheric scientists, climagologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed this petition to the number of members of the various professional organizations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.
The AGU hydrology group has over 6,000 members who call hydrology their primary field. The OISM list has 22 names that claim to be hydrologists, or 0.4%.
The AGU ocean sciences group claims approximately 6,800 members. The OISM has 83 names, or 1.2%. And again, given that AGU membership is not required to be a practicing ocean scientists, this number is inflated.
The American Meteorological Society claims over 14,000 members and the OISM claims 341 meteorologists as petition signatories. That’s only 2.4%.
It’s clear that the OISM names don’t represent a significant number of scientists when compared to either the total number of science graduates in the U.S. or to the number of practicing scientists who work in likely relevant fields. But that’s not all.
Over recent years, various organizations have set out to estimate just how widespread the supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW actually is. Two recent efforts were conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University and by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The STATS survey found that 84% of climate scientists surveyed “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring” and that “[o]nly 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.” The STATS survey involved a random sampling of “489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union” and it has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 4%.
The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.
84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million scientists who agree that climate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is, conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption. The 13,245 scientists and 152 possible climate scientists who signed the OISM petition represent a small minority of the totals.
The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.
That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard.
A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it’s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the “30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC” meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it’s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat.
Acknowledgements to Brian Angliss at Scholars and Rogues who guest wrote this post.
i can't understand why you continue to jump to different issues. What's the problem with parametrizations as far as the climate change thory is concerned? Is it included in the parametrizations? Again, it might be a problem of the models, not of the theory.
"There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out the physics of (whatever causes the PDO), however, this is not necessary to make predictions about its effects."
You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory.
As for what is what we now call PDO, you might be interested in this atmoz's post.
Personally, I can't see how you don't see the relevance here. You were arguing that we can just plug "the physics and chemistry" into the models and come up with some predictions(or projections). The Wiki page discusses how this is *not* what the models do -
"Parameterization in a climate model refers to the method of replacing (physical)processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process. This can be contrasted with other processes—e.g., large-scale flow of the atmosphere—that are explicitly resolved within the models."(bracketed term added by me for clarity)
Notice how they replace a more complex real process with a simplified process.
"You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory."
Well, we could make hindcasts for periods if we got some previously undiscovered data. If we found a way to reconstruct the PDO for the last 1000 years we could use that to hindcast the temperature. IAC, there is no requirement for a theory to make predictions of the past, just that it make some testable predictions that can be tested against real world observations.
Thanks for the Atmoz link, I will need some time to digest it, though.
Cheers, :)
i'm still confused. Could you please elaborate on the link between parametrizations and AGW theory?
These sorts of expressions are then subbed into the larger climate model to supposedly mimic the behavior of the actual climate.
This is why there are many climate models, individual modellers make different guesses as to which expressions are the best approximations of the real world on the scale they are working with. If there were no differences in these parameters, each model would have identical outputs.
How this applies to the theory is that changes in parameterizations will/must lead to changes in predictions of the behavior of the climate.
Cheers, :)
Parameterizations are bounded and so are the changes resulting from different parameterizations. There is indeed a variety of GCMs, that's why IPCC takes into consideration the results of many runs for many models. However, GCMs do not show wildly different results and indeed allow to form projections within reasonable limits, so the end result is usable. It seems you're trying the tired old "skeptic" argument "we don't know for sure so we don't know at all," or something in that same vein.
Disappointing from someone better informed and better reasoning than the run of the Watts' mill type of "skeptic."
I did not make any political, off topic or ad hominem attacks unlike numerous comments already posted.
My comments were very on track and in answer to the comments of Phillipe and the unknown author.
I would like to know why after seeing my comments here yesterday evening, are they now gone?
Would the author of the blog care to comment?
(This is a reply to a comment NQ/A made on another thread, linked above)
I presume you have been misinformed on this topic, else you would not have said this: Please read the main article that is the topic of this thread.
My definition of "competent scientist" should be clear after reading the post. If not, then this should illuminate the remainder of the darkness remaining.
The Yooper
That depends. If you are asking me to prove the non-existence of something (which would be a silly request), then I could not do that.
Scientists follow the Scientific Method: The hypothesis that is best supported by all of the data is the one that gains eventual acceptance by other scientists. Over time, an accepted hypothesis can be verified sufficiently to become a theory. That is where the field of global warming is: Theory.
Per the National Academy of Science in their publication Advancing the Science of Climate Change: “Very likely” means a greater than 90% likelihood of probability. I.e., pretty certain.
So, in order to overturn the anthropogenic attribution of global warming, what must a scientist do? Find a viable physics-based alternative to one of the points in this chain: Plenty have espoused alternative theories on blogs, but none have been able to survive scrutiny in a peer-reviewed publication.
So have any scientists, using all of the data, been able to break the above chain? None that I'm aware of. Fossil fuel interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the US every year to lobby against any controls on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Vast riche$ await anyone who can scientifically break the chain of evidence & show the AGW is a non-worry (I'd chip in a couple of hundred myself).
Spencer is probably the closest to a competent scientist among the denialarati. Per the Dessler/Spencer emails, Spencer believes clouds cause ENSO...
So the real question is: have you found any scientist that claims to have overturned AGW? If so, who was it? In what peer-reviewed publication was their work published? Have they presented their proof to those meeting in Cancun yet?
I have no wish at all for AGW to be real. You have no idea the amount of sleep I've lost over the years because of it. The thought of the world I bequeath to my young children and their children...
NQ/A, with the caveat that this is a hypothetical question for thought purposes alone and answering will not constitute an admission of belief in AGW, if AGW is real and all of the predictions come true, what will you say to your grandchildren when they come to you and ask you what you did to try and stop it?
Just curious.
The Yooper
I'd say Spenser, Lindzen (when talking to other scientists), Christy, maybe Chylek as credible people. I would read published papers on the subject from them with some respect. Many of the others are also people I would read when publishing in their respective fields as they are certainly competent there.
In addition to muoncounter's valuable counsel above, please also remember this portion of the Comments Policy: Comments referring to Gore are on thin ice by themselves.
If you would care to re-phrase your comment to bring it into compliance with the Comments Policy, I'm sure there are several here who would be more than happy to enjoy the discourse.
The Yooper
If someone you agree with dabbles in politics with cherry-picked data that supports their position: no problemo.
But, when I challenge that same cherry-picked data with irrefutable facts that are against your world view, my data is deleted and I’m accused of engaging in an ideological rant.
And that works for you.
That Daniel’s Big Oil comment was incidental is irrelevant – the problem remains that making such a point at all while ignoring the vast riche$ being made by AGW supporters indicates a serious disconnect with reality or intentional disingenuousness. Which is what I was addressing. Naturally, that point blew past you.
Next time, muoncounter, why not just tell me to sit down and shut up. It is so much more efficient.
In the meantime, Daniel, how about manning up and addressing my point. I know you know what I’m talking about – stop hiding behind your delete key.
Got some EVIDENCE that scientists are doing the world a favour by pointing out that their is a problem are somehow making huge amounts of cash?
Does evidence for the Ptolemic system means there is good reason to doubt the earth goes around the sun? Do you make up all your judgements on reality on the basis of supposed motives?
I think there are good reasons to be suspicious of meddling of those with a lot to lose but frankly its best to concentrate on the science, what is the best model for reality and leave the political hangups behind.
The focus of my comment @ 109 (itself a response to your question @ 108) was points 1-8 of a logical evidenciary chain. That you focus instead on an off-the-cuff (albeit snarky, but entirely factual) throwaway quip instead of an objective dialogue-based examination of the underlying science is both telling and troubling.
Resorting to the "attack the messenger" ploy may be considered both acceptable and de rigueur in other venues...but not this one.
If you wish to discuss the underlying science of both climate science and anthropogenic global warming and avoid the personal attacks - then Skeptical Science is an incredible resource for learning and the sharing of knowledge in a setting protected from the emotion colouring most other sites on the internet. Here, lay persons rub elbows with scientists of all disciplines. Here, one can learn apace at leisure alone or pick the brains of experts directly.
If you wish other forms of dialogue and interaction, then Skeptical Science is not the place for you.
Your call.
Back to the Oscars,
The Yooper
My point is NOT to bring politics into this issue, but to address his insertion of politics.
And I have to apologize to you, I’m not good at substituting words and your critical question isn’t quite phrased correctly, so I can’t answer you. If you can rephrase this, I’ll give it an honest shot: “Got some EVIDENCE that scientists are doing the world a favour by pointing out that their is a problem are somehow making huge amounts of cash?”
When you are ready to address the reason you made such a one-sided statement, I will happily engage in a conversation with you and promise to do my utmost to refrain from anything that seems like an attack.
And as for me, well I am oil and coal man! And end to those would definitely affect my funding streams. I dont think there is a single person in my department who doubts the reality of AGW either. However, I cant actually imagine that there is no use for my skills, no other problems to solve so I don't exactly fear unemployment. What I do think though is that you seek the truth however personally annoying it might be.
What I do find repellant is suggestions that AGW theorists are scheming, pushing some political agenda, looking at the data one sided etc. There is a dearth of any other sensible way to look at the data. Only deception practised on blog sites and other media.
Is it really impossible for us to agree that, even within sarcasm, the comment was one sided and designed to bolster your world view?
1. NOAA alone has a "climate change" budget of $437 million.
2. President Obama Awards $2.3 Billion for New Clean-Tech Manufacturing Jobs.
3. Al Gore is in line to become a Billionaire from investments in green technologies
4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US is willing to contribute to a $100 Billion a year fund to help poorer countries mitigate the effect of climate change
5. Developing nations want $200 Billion
6. Spain's PV solar plants, which directly convert sunlight into electricity, have been charging nearly 10 times the wholesale price.
Big Oil companies would have to spend 46 times more just to match POTUS's awards alone.
Al Gore stands to be (single handedly) worth double what they've spent. (this is not an attack on Al Gore – congrats to him, I’m strictly putting the numbers in perspective.)
And we haven't even discussed what the rest of the world is spending.
The very simple fact is that there is more money to be made on the AGW side than the opposition. So, when one claims that there are riches to be made against AGW, I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve entered the Twilight Zone – and THAT has been my only argument here.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
You are comparing Oil Industry money spent on lobbying alone with with the total revenue for research (most of which does not end up in scientists pockets), industrial applications, and profits from "green activities". For an apples and apples comparison, you would need to compare that list with the total oil company revenues, which was over a trillion dollars in 2009 for the top four companies alone.
Even that is not a fair comparison, because that is a single years actual revenues, while your big ticket items are multi year expenditures, and in the case of 4 & 5, double counted and not even locked in yet.
Another apples and apples comparisons is total donations to political parties in the US. Oil and Gas companies donated over 45 million dollars in 2102. Less than 3 million was donated by the alternative energy industry. Just shy of $19 million was donated on environmental issues, but that is as likely to include Koch brother donations as it is Al Gore's.
Any way you slice it, there is more money to be made in, and by appeasing the oil industry (not to mention the coal industry) than there is in environmentalism. And much more to be made in spruiking denialism then there is to be made from doing climate science.
IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies in 2008 at $557B
annually. That represents a lot of shareholder value to protect. If you ended those, you would pay more for energy but less for tax. Seem like a good idea? Not if you live on coal subsidies.
NOAA spends its money on instrumentation largely. Now if Al Gore invested in oil, what you say?
I will agree that if you want to make money by investing in new technology, then investing in green technology is the way to go. That's what we need - who wants to freeze in the dark on the back of a horse? But the DB argument that you object to wasnt about technology - it was about investment in climate science -finding out what its all about - versus investing in lobbying and dirty tricks. That's the difference.
Including Oil revenues without considering their expenses and capital investment expenditures is completely missing the mark. Big Oil must actually spend money to make money.
When the gov't gives away Billions of dollars and props up the "green" industry (as was done in Spain, et al) with tax payer dollars - we are not comparing apples to apples.
Also, the intention of including #5 was not for the purpose of total global dollars spent, but to point out that $100 Billion a year wasn’t enough and that the motivation is a money grab. (you can claim that is conjecture - again, I will disagree). However, I will concede your point that the fund is not locked in yet - that fund is a great example of true politicking. Regardless, the point of including that fund in the list is to point to the dollar motivation of the “green” team.
Unfortunately, the formula isn’t as simple as donations. Daniel’s original statement was, "Fossil fuel interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the US every year to lobby against any controls on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Vast riche$ await anyone who can scientifically break the chain of evidence & show the AGW is a non-worry (I'd chip in a couple of hundred myself)."
The first sentence is accurate; the second sentence is where I’m taking issue. With Billions of dollars being GIVEN to green technologies, this constant whining about oil lobby dollars rings hollow.
With regard to your last paragraph - I disagree (I know, you’re shocked). As the hour is late, any further support of my position will have to wait for another day.
I have a reason for believing that Gore is “invested”, it is indirect and admittedly spins off of Green Peace.
More on that another day.
So much so that one could be excused for considering that perhaps it is not the desire to get rich that directs them, but perhaps understandably the desire to survive.
As to Daniel's statement, I don't know that it is true. But it is certainly true that a comfortable and easy living is available to any scientist willing to stay on message in the anti AGW speaking tour. Much easier than actual research. I don't know that financial incentives are important to either side, however. I think people try to make a living doing what they believe in.
On the other hand, there are several people who gain a lot of attention for their message because what they happen to believe in coincides with what the Oil industry wants to be heard. In contrast, and especially in the US, speaking out in support of the science has alienated politicians of all stripes, and the major sources of campaign funding. Simple pragmatism has always favoured staying quiet on AGW, or opposing it.
JohnD. Perhaps a fair point. Not so much survive but be able to devote time to interesting problems. I hate working on boring ones and there is no end of those.
Phil
Not wanting to get into a pointless discussion about Al Gore, but I sometimes wonder what the man has to do to, to stop so-called skeptics from constantly sniping at him : hide his money under his mattress ?
Previously he was criticised for holding family stocks and shares in oil and a zinc mine, but now that he is investing in green technology (i.e. putting his money where his mouth is, as he put it) he is criticised again !
I know the so-called skeptics can't stand him and will criticise him come-what-may, but if you didn't laugh at this stuff you'd have to cry at the desperation of the tactics.
Then why are so many corporate lobbies painting any financial controls on fossil fuel emissions as a 'carbon tax'? Why is there so much resistance to EPA regulation of CO2? Because corporate profits are at stake -- those are the riches that Koch Bros et al want to protect. Don't fantasize that these lobbies are concerned for middle class jobs - that would truly be living in the Zone.
Which was a great show, by the way.
#125: "Big Oil must actually spend money to make money.
When the gov't gives away Billions of dollars"
There's the core of NQA's argument: Big Oil profits are the fruit of honest labor; Big Science is living off the public trough. For that to be a legitimate equivalence, we'd have to include Big Military and the contractors whose sole income is government handouts. But that would be even further off-topic.
Lets to heart of what you are taking issue with in above statement and also the question of whether AGW is result of biased evaluation of data.
I think DB is right in his statement and here is why.
The motivation to find that AGW is non-worry is immense for a scientist (not a technologist though as you point out).
1/ Its hard to make your name with me-too science
2/ A Nobel prize awaits your successful effort
3/ Given the half-baked stuff funded by fossil fuel fronts, its got to be easier to get money there than from cut-throat world of conventional funders. Furthermore, since mainstream scientist employers are not accessing this money on whole, you can have the money yourself instead of salary.
4/ At a personal level, who wants AGW to be true? (Yes, there are luddites and atavistic dreamers but these arent the scientists I know).
Its also important to understand the difference between "lobby science" and conventional funding sources. There isnt conventional funding for "pro-AGW" science nor should there be for "anti-AGW" science. There is funding for finding out what we dont know. The funding provider is indifferent as to whether the result is supportive or not of a given theory. On the other hand, can you imagine Cato or SPPI being pleased with results that support conventional climate theory? I also know that FF has very considerable internal research capacity. However, it is choosing to fund lobbying and disinformation rather than pursue an alternative theory.
My take on climate science from an outsider is that an alternative theory is going to be tough. To get that Nobel prize will require a theory that accounts for all current observations and yet lets us off the hook. For my 2c, the unknowns that are worth pursuing are:
1/ A hidden negative feedback that will reduce ECS. Clouds and aerosols are favourite but face the problem that you need a mechanism that is working now or in future but didnt work in the past as low sensitivities make paleoclimate and 20th Century climate extremely difficult.
2/ A hidden natural energy flow that somehow mimics the signature of GHG.
Any others?
You can hope on those, but it isnt the way to bet or vote.
When are we going to collectively realize that the "messenger" is of no relative importance.
All that matters are the facts.
Is there an ongoing planetary average temperature increase that is in some meaningful way, associated with atmospheric CO2 levels?
If so, is this increasing trend of sufficient magnitude to cause worrying humanitarian and/or environmental effects?
If so, will the proposed carbon control schemes be effective in combatting the anticipated problems?
The officially proposed controls are only justified if the answers are all YES, there is no doubt of these factors.
BUT, because there are doubts, please don't tell me there are none, there is insufficient basis to support draconian, life- and liberty-threatening control and financial government policy implementations.
Yes. Far less doubt than you might imagine, but you do perhaps need to look at the theory of climate as a whole and you have some doubts here then comment on the appropriate thread.
If so, is this increasing trend of sufficient magnitude to cause worrying humanitarian and/or environmental effects?
"worrying" is somewhat subjective. Do the impacts detailed in the IPCC reports (as opposed to say greenpeace propoganda) worry you? They certainly worry me.
If so, will the proposed carbon control schemes be effective in combating the anticipated problems?
Now that is a narrow focus - if you dont like the current proposed schemes (and your comment on "life and liberty threatening control" sounds like fossil fuel propaganda not facts), then propose better ones. I am very interested in solutions that work for right-wing leanings. I would genuinely like to hear your responses to this post (you might to peruse the preceding comments.
1. Can science ever predict anything with 100% certainty?
2. If so, show me. If not, what level of certainty is acceptable to you?
This is the problem. Scientists are certain enough to say, "we're in danger." Yet there are people who ignore the science but have the means, motivation, and morality to spread the idea that "No, there are too many uncertainties." The question you, as a non-scientist, should ask yourself is not "who should I believe?" but instead "why do I believe who and what I do believe?" Do you believe that there is significant uncertainty? Why? Who led you to believe this, and what were the arguments?
There is no doubt about the basic mechanism, but it's my word against some doubter's word unless you're willing to engage the science. I've had this debate with others. It all comes down to giving up control over your beliefs. If you're not willing to spend the time to understand the issue, then you must give up some control over your beliefs and the resulting actions. Most people do that willingly in many areas of their lives. I've yet to meet the person who is totally in control of their beliefs (and probably won't; he/she's living in a cave somewhere, alone forever). The social production of scientific knowledge gives us the most objective understanding of 'reality' we can get. It's not perfect, nor are we.
One of the persons with whom I was arguing claimed to be an Objectivist--someone who believes rational self-interest and the economic mode of capitalism are the keys to individual freedom. Yet this person parroted others who, in turn, had parroted others. The claims made by this person were easily dismissed with a few simple observations and the application of physical laws (that the person clearly accepted). Yet this advocate for rationality and objective thought still refused to admit error and, in fact, repeated the same errors in another, subsequent post.
Whenever someone mentions individual liberty in an argument, I begin to suspect that the only things the person is interested in are defending the profit motive and excusing themselves from responsibilities. I'm not saying that you, Ken, generate this response; rather, experiences such as the one I describe above do.
Ken, see here for why stopping AGW will not end life and liberty.