Trying To Keep Their Story Straight

As time marches on I increasingly get the feeling that the members of the "global warming consensus" are more like co-conspirators of some large criminal enterprise than they are like scientists. The near hysterical drive for purity and "consensus" has the ring of someone desperately hoping their alibi will hold water. But, of course, it simply cannot. The myth of "consensus" is suffering the death of a thousand cuts, but the zealots don't realize it yet.

In this vein, here is a new example of muddle headed thinking from the BBC: Caution urged on climate 'risks'

Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

Both men hold the mainstream view on climate change - that human activity is the cause.

But they think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

As an example, they point to a recent statement from one of the foremost US science bodies - the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The association released a strongly worded statement at its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.

"It's certainly a very strong statement," Professor Collier told BBC News.

"I suspect it refers to evidence [ed. evidence the loyal readers of the Iconic Midwest already know does not exist] that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming; but to make the blanket assumption that all extreme events are increasing is a bit too early yet."

So even in this article cautioning against the over-reach of climate science claims, there is a serious over-reach of climate science claims. They simply cannot help themselves, and for good reason...although it has nothing to do with good science.

A former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, Professor Collier is concerned that the serious message about the real risks posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature claims.

"I think there is a good chance of that," he said. "We must guard against that - it would be very damaging.

"I've no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don't want to undermine that case by crying wolf."

Think about these statements for a second. If your concern was doing good scientific research, would such statements make any sense? The answer is, of course, no. They are in fact nonsense from a scientific point of view. Science doesn't care about "crying wolf". It cares about verifiable evidence. The shooting down of unverifiable hypothesis is actually a main component of the scientific method, and it is a never ending process.

So why all the hand-wringing about "crying wolf"? Well, obviously it has to do with politics. There is a political agenda that these folks wish to implement via scientific fiat, and the quickest way to undermine their political support is to make dire predictions that do not come to pass. Science might not care about "crying wolf," but public opinion does.

Notice, for example, how claims that current warming might be occurring due to non-human factors are treated. Such claims are denounced out of hand simply because they do not support the pre-ordained political agenda. At that point real science becomes a danger. That is why you have the current campaigns to marginalize those who wish to keep the path of scientific inquiry open. That is why you have folks like Bjorn Lomborg, who accepts BOTH global warming AND a large anthropogenic component to it, treated as a traitor because he doesn't support the pre-ordained political solutions advocated. They also do not like the fact he keeps an open mind and will dispassionately look at all the available evidence. Such people are anathema to their vision of ideological purity and must be eliminated from the discussion. Thus the (thankfully failed) campaign in Denmark to destroy Lomborg's career.

It was customary for scientists to see themselves as versions of Galileo, standing up against the roadblocks to free inquiry set up by modern day equivalents to the Catholic Church. I'm not sure the analogy applies any longer, or maybe if it does apply it only does so in reverse.