THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE

National Post, 17 May 2005

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b93c1368-27b7-4f55-a60e-5b5d1b1ff38b

By Benny Peiser

Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel

Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's

leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have

come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and

variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate.

They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic

ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which,

according to their calculations, will result in "some small global cooling

over the next couple of years."

I remain decidedly skeptical of such long-term climate predictions.

Nevertheless, it is quite remarkable that the global mean temperature, as

recorded by NASA's global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, has actually dropped

slightly during the last couple of years -- notwithstanding increased levels

of CO2 emissions. Two more years of cooling and we may even see the

reappearance of a new Ice Age scare.

Whatever one may think of these odd developments, the idea that the sun is

the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in

recent years. Last month, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top Earth scientists,

published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that

"empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as

the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as

potential amplifiers."

What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that

they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than

human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world's leading

scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the

leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers

don't exist in the peer-reviewed literature?

According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science in December,

2004, there is unanimous "scientific consensus" on the anthropogenic causes

of recent global warming. Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have

analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either

explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming

trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an

additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just

over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of

abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. Oreskes

even claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned once in

any of the papers since 1993 and concludes: "This analysis shows that

scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the

National Academy of Sciences and the public statements of their professional

societies. Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the

impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists,

but that impression is incorrect."

What happened to the countless research papers that show global temperatures

were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the

Medieval Warm Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than

today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and

that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the

peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers

(many of them written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have

raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a

"scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such

thing.

In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the "consensus" is not

restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished

scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S.

Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of

the whole idea. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists formally

rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global

warming, emphasizing: "The Earth's climate is constantly changing owing to

natural variability in Earth processes. Natural climate variability over

recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential

human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test

the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural

variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global

climate at this time."

In the meantime, activists, campaigners and a number of scientific

organizations routinely cited Oreskes' essay as final confirmation that the

science of climate change is settled once and for all. In a worrying sign of

attempted press containment, Britain's Royal Society has even employed her

study to call upon the British media to curtail reporting about the

scientific controversy altogether.

Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as

was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate

researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von

Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter

of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the

most recent climatic changes." Remarkably, a research paper about their

survey and some of its key results were submitted to Science in August,

2004. Yet shortly after the paper was rejected, the journal published

Oreskes' study, which claimed a universal consensus among climate

researchers.

The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days

before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently

made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite

clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly

misled the public and the world's media. In my view, such unethical

behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of

scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse

than the editors' refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals

regarding Oreskes' flawed study.

The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is

bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by

critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear

among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and

doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay

action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's

all over for science.

Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University.

Copyright 2005, National Post

NOTE: In my analysis, I used the same ISI data base and the same key words

as Oreskes but used all documents listed therein. While Oreskes did not specify here

methodology in her SCIENCE essay, it would appear that she excluded the abstracts in

the “Social Sciences Citation Index” and “Arts & Humanities Citation Index”. She also

seems to have limited her search to “Articles", while I included “all document types”.

These differences may explain the discrepancy between the 928 documents analysed by

Oreskes and the 1117 documents I analysed, although her figures don’t add up. Some

critics have claimed that these differences essentially undermine my main case while

they validate Oreskes'. These commentator, however, ignore the more important flaw 

I discerned: Only 13 abstracts explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the 'consensus

view', while a majority of abstracts does not include any direct or indirect reference to 

anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change. BJP, 26/08/05