Recently I have been seeking a positive angle to turn skepticism through. The experience of medicine in battling with drug companies for objective evidence-based outputs is familiar to many, and I think provides a framework for directing the calls like ‘scam’ and ‘swindle’ into positive long term research. I would draw your attention to Medical Evidence Blog. All the same elements that concern Steve McIntyre, Roger, myself, and others about AGW are there: non-reporting of negative results, lack of power in tests, non-disclosure of data, poor methodology.

My idea is that the climate sciences are transitioning from a cottage science to a commercial science, and there are some ‘blind spots’ in need of education. They don’t have a good handle on quality of evidence for example. All studies are assessed on a one-off basis, ad hoc methodologies abound and are encouraged, rather than a framework of objective common practice.

The social sciences probably have something to teach us here. Although the major institutions are not commercial companies, they are power structures, and so act to reinforce the dominant ideology. Said another way, in lingo where I come from, most people don’t have the guts to put their livelihood on the line (until they retire). And we have seen plenty of scientists ‘coming out’ about their concerns with AGW after they retire.

Probably the worst outcome would be for AGW to be false, and it not to be a scandal.

Recently I have been seeking a positive angle to turn skepticism through. The experience of medicine in battling with drug companies for objective evidence-based outputs is familiar to many, and I think provides a framework for directing the calls like ‘scam’ and ‘swindle’ into positive long term research. I would draw your attention to Medical Evidence Blog. All the same elements that concern Steve McIntyre, Roger, myself, and others about AGW are there: non-reporting of negative results, lack of power in tests, non-disclosure of data, poor methodology.

My idea is that the climate sciences are transitioning from a cottage science to a commercial science, and there are some ‘blind spots’ in need of education. They don’t have a good handle on quality of evidence for example. All studies are assessed on a one-off basis, ad hoc methodologies abound and are encouraged, rather than a framework of objective common practice.

The social sciences probably have something to teach us here. Although the major institutions are not commercial companies, they are power structures, and so act to reinforce the dominant ideology. Said another way, in lingo where I come from, most people don’t have the guts to put their livelihood on the line (until they retire). And we have seen plenty of scientists ‘coming out’ about their concerns with AGW after they retire.

Probably the worst outcome would be for AGW to be false, and it not to be a scandal.

“Your analysis of the IPCC is entirely apt. That said, what do you make of the fact that so many leading gate-keepers in science seem either to support the IPCC’s position or to take an even less nuanced position in their public statements about the present dangers of Co2-induced AGW than does the IPCC?

I would include in this category Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, John Holdren, President of the AAAS, Stephen Schneider, editor of Climate Change, The Royal Society, and the editors of Scientific American. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature seems to be more cautious than the others listed here, but still solidly on board the consensus.

Thus your analysis of the IPCC, accurate as it is, does not explain why these other individuals and organizations would take a similar position.”

Another commentator noted that Ralph Cicerone of the NAS should be added to my list.

You might be completely correct in your evaluation of the quality of evidence regarding global warming, but if so then it is worth noting that the problem extends well beyond the IPCC and well beyond the boundaries of climate science. If alarmist AGW turns out to be as deeply flawed as you and others suggest, then we must conclude that almost all major gatekeepers in the scientific community demonstrated remarkably poor judgment throughout the decades of this controversy. The fact that there have been high profile, credible opponents to alarmist AGW and that nonetheless major gatekeepers unanimously insisted on the validity of AGW and appropriateness of alarmism calls into question the structure of our systems that define scientific credibility. Intelligent arguments by well-informed skeptics of alarmist AGW are readily available; they cannot plead ignorance.

How could diverse scientific organizations all have chosen leaders who happen to share the alarmist perspective on AGW despite contrary evidence? Is it due to cultural norms among scientific elites? Is it due to the incentive structure that leads certain types of individuals into scientific administration? Is it a global club of good ole’ boys? Some kind of tribal loyalty among certain kinds of scientists? Or is it something else?

Of course if AGW turns out to be a serious issue, we don’t need to concerned about all of this. But if AGW turns out to be a minor phenomenon, and the alarmist claims were never well justified, then we must face the fact that the flaws go far more deeply than just the IPCC. Ex post facto they can claim that it was appropriate to be alarmed “just in case.” But then when one looks closely at the specific decisions made by gatekeepers one becomes more concerned.

The fact that the leading gatekeepeers have not supported Steve McIntyre’s efforts at auditing certain areas of climate science is certainly discomfiting. Given the high profile of the hockeystick in AGW propaganda and the high profile of the evidentiary controversy of the hockeystick, including Wegman’s testimony, I would have thought that Science, Nature, or one of the major climate journals would have devoted a significant amount of space to diverse perspectives on the hockeystick debate. Instead they seem to have circled the wagons in order to silence the implications of McIntyre in all the dozens of ways documented at his blog.

If they had simply supported McIntyre’s attempts to access data that should have been readily available to begin with they would have maintained their credibility. It is very difficult to understand why none of them regard data access and transparent methods in climate research as fundamental. Regardless of their confidence in alarmist AGW or their personal distaste for McIntyre they should support his requests for data and methods (James Annan is an alarmist who has distinguished himself through his unusual scientific integrity here, having supported at least one of McIntyre’s requests). Most of us were brought up to believe that replication of results was one of the cornerstones of scientific credibility – and for good reason. For almost all major gatekeepers in science today to be implicitly supporting widely-reported obstructions to scientific replication is a horrifying scandal. Their behavior is a violation of the most fundamental ethos of science. If alarmism proves to be justified they will get away with it. If not, this may some day be considered the largest ethical scandal in scientific history.

“Your analysis of the IPCC is entirely apt. That said, what do you make of the fact that so many leading gate-keepers in science seem either to support the IPCC’s position or to take an even less nuanced position in their public statements about the present dangers of Co2-induced AGW than does the IPCC?

I would include in this category Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, John Holdren, President of the AAAS, Stephen Schneider, editor of Climate Change, The Royal Society, and the editors of Scientific American. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature seems to be more cautious than the others listed here, but still solidly on board the consensus.

Thus your analysis of the IPCC, accurate as it is, does not explain why these other individuals and organizations would take a similar position.”

Another commentator noted that Ralph Cicerone of the NAS should be added to my list.

You might be completely correct in your evaluation of the quality of evidence regarding global warming, but if so then it is worth noting that the problem extends well beyond the IPCC and well beyond the boundaries of climate science. If alarmist AGW turns out to be as deeply flawed as you and others suggest, then we must conclude that almost all major gatekeepers in the scientific community demonstrated remarkably poor judgment throughout the decades of this controversy. The fact that there have been high profile, credible opponents to alarmist AGW and that nonetheless major gatekeepers unanimously insisted on the validity of AGW and appropriateness of alarmism calls into question the structure of our systems that define scientific credibility. Intelligent arguments by well-informed skeptics of alarmist AGW are readily available; they cannot plead ignorance.

How could diverse scientific organizations all have chosen leaders who happen to share the alarmist perspective on AGW despite contrary evidence? Is it due to cultural norms among scientific elites? Is it due to the incentive structure that leads certain types of individuals into scientific administration? Is it a global club of good ole’ boys? Some kind of tribal loyalty among certain kinds of scientists? Or is it something else?

Of course if AGW turns out to be a serious issue, we don’t need to concerned about all of this. But if AGW turns out to be a minor phenomenon, and the alarmist claims were never well justified, then we must face the fact that the flaws go far more deeply than just the IPCC. Ex post facto they can claim that it was appropriate to be alarmed “just in case.” But then when one looks closely at the specific decisions made by gatekeepers one becomes more concerned.

The fact that the leading gatekeepeers have not supported Steve McIntyre’s efforts at auditing certain areas of climate science is certainly discomfiting. Given the high profile of the hockeystick in AGW propaganda and the high profile of the evidentiary controversy of the hockeystick, including Wegman’s testimony, I would have thought that Science, Nature, or one of the major climate journals would have devoted a significant amount of space to diverse perspectives on the hockeystick debate. Instead they seem to have circled the wagons in order to silence the implications of McIntyre in all the dozens of ways documented at his blog.

If they had simply supported McIntyre’s attempts to access data that should have been readily available to begin with they would have maintained their credibility. It is very difficult to understand why none of them regard data access and transparent methods in climate research as fundamental. Regardless of their confidence in alarmist AGW or their personal distaste for McIntyre they should support his requests for data and methods (James Annan is an alarmist who has distinguished himself through his unusual scientific integrity here, having supported at least one of McIntyre’s requests). Most of us were brought up to believe that replication of results was one of the cornerstones of scientific credibility – and for good reason. For almost all major gatekeepers in science today to be implicitly supporting widely-reported obstructions to scientific replication is a horrifying scandal. Their behavior is a violation of the most fundamental ethos of science. If alarmism proves to be justified they will get away with it. If not, this may some day be considered the largest ethical scandal in scientific history.