The Scientific Method

Something that really pisses me off in the current climate debate is the use of the term, "Climate Sceptic".
As if climate scientists are proposing some faith based religion of doom and the climate sceptics are the only people able to look critically at the evidence and make rational judgements on it.

Fact:

All scientists are trained to be sceptical, it's a fundamental part of the scientific method. We are all trained to evaluate evidence and make rational decisions based on the quality of the data and it's statistical significance. Do we all agree on everything ? No, we're human beings, of course we don't. So we have a system of assessing scientific work and it's value. It's called "Peer Review". (This doesn't mean that Lord Monckton is the ideal man for the job though, even if he is a Peer of the Realm, he's a journalist not a scientist).

As far as I can see, most of the very genuine and well meaning people objecting to climate scientists findings are doing so on emotional or faith based criteria rather than evidence based ones. ie they are not truly sceptical at all. They just don't understand the science or don't want to believe it so cherry pick arguments to support their position. That's a very normal human behaviour, but it doesn't make for good policy decisions.

Peer Review:

Scientists do their research, make their measurements and then publish their results in journals where it can be assessed by all their colleagues. The work is criticised and if it is deemed to be worthwhile, other scientists will then try to duplicate the results. After a period of time, often years, a consensus is reached between researchers.

If you can't get your paper published, that does not mean that there is a conspiracy theory, it means that there are fundamental errors in your work. The important thing with peer review is that it is done by your peers. Particle physicists have their work reviewed by other particle physicists. If a critical comment comes from a biologist, it probably isn't going to carry much weight among particle physicists and that's exactly how it should be. If I write a letter to Nature saying that CERN are wrong and the Higgs Boson is bullshit because I've been around nearly fifty years and I've never seen one, it will get screwed up and thrown in the bin where it belongs. The same is true of climate science, many of the people criticising the science are simply not qualified in that field, but expect their comments to be treated with equal import as those of people who have made climate research their life's work.

One of the very common complaints among so called sceptics is urban heat islands interfering with the accuracy of data. These clowns make the assumption that professional scientists working in the field for decades have somehow completely overlooked this idea. In fact it's old hat, professional climate scientists have been aware of this effect for years and correct for it in their work. Reviews of data by sceptics in recent years have confirmed the published work. Funny that.

In other words, the process for scepticism is already in place and it works.

It's all a conspiracy to get millions in research funding.

Look around you and you won't find very many rich scientists. We generally aren't in it for money.
Is there a conspiracy ? Well, the first ingredient in a good conspiracy is motive. So which is the stronger motive, a few million bucks of research funding or many billions of dollars of fossil fuel derived income at stake.

Lets go back to peer review. There is a very limited pool of research dollars available. It gets allocated to fund the projects deemed most important and most likely to succeed. If you publish research that is found to be fundamentally wrong by your peers or is found to be fraudulent, you will probably lose your job and never work as a scientist again. All your research is tainted. Your accumulated life's work rendered valueless. No sane scientist will consider publishing fraudulent research, it is very, very rare.

All research institutions are competing for a small slice of the funding available, so nobody has a motive for covering up other people's  fraudulent or incompetent work. Quite the opposite. If your work is wrong, your own colleagues will shout it from the roof tops, because they would all like to get the funding that paid for your flawed research. A conspiracy among scientists to fabricate climate science ?
Two words, "Horse Shit".  Enough said.

So back to motive, is it coincidence that a fair amount of the material pumped out to discredit climate science and to confuse the public is funded by organisations who in turn receive most of their funding from huge corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ? Huge corporations, with very deep pockets, who can afford the best publicists and the best lobbyists ? I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy, but if there is, then lets look in the right place. You be the judge.

One classic example for me was a recent TV show where Senator Nick Minchin a prominent climate sceptic, and a young environmental activist tried to change each others minds on climate change. The young lady introduced evidence from professional scientists around the world with decades of study and research under their belts.  Senator Minchin with one exception introduced a bunch of unqualified bloggers and political staffers turned lobbyists. Is Senator Minchin dumb enough not to see that glaring deficiency ? Well lets be kind and say, perhaps he's blinded by his own world view. People usually believe what they want to believe and rationalise their position until they feel good about it.

Is all the science clear cut ?

No of course not. These are immensely complex systems with extremely long term feed back loops. There are disagreements about the rate of change and magnitude of change. There is in other words uncertainty of the measurements and predictions. That's normal, even a measurement as simple as checking your height with a tape measure has some level of error and a corresponding level of uncertainty.

What is clear cut is that there is  consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening, it's happening faster than the IPCC's conservative estimates predicted and the very best explanation available is human activity. The implications of this for our society are very serious, and the chances are that it will take a long time to adapt to the effects of climate change. It seems prudent to start planning for them and doing whatever we can to minimise the changes and mitigate the effects.

If you are confused about this issue, that's fine, in fact it's good because it means that you're actually thinking about it. So where is the best place to find out about it ? Well probably by doing a science degree and reading the peer reviewed journals.  These are complex issues and there is a wealth of crap out there, the internet is not peer reviewed, any crank and crackpot can write whatever they want, and I often do. :)

Before you believe all of the climate change denial arguments though, you can find material to balance it here. The Skeptical Science site founder won a Eureka Prize for his efforts to communicate climate science.
Is it perfect ? No, but it's a more balanced and scientifically credible site than most, with clear explanations of some of the better known myths.