Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/29/2011 5:18:54 AM PST by grayhog
Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.
The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC’s policy goals. Yet, the IPCC’s “cause” (Michael Mann’s term) appears to trump all else.
So, when the science doesn’t support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC’s findings. After considerable reflection, I’m going to avoid using the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias.
It’s Impossible to Avoid Bias
We are all familiar with competing experts in a trial who have diametrically opposed opinions on some matter, even given the same evidence. This happens in science all the time.
Even if we have perfect measurements of Nature, scientists can still come to different conclusions about what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect. So, biases on the part of scientists inevitably influence their opinions. The formation of a hypothesis of how nature works is always biased by the scientist’s worldview and limited amount of knowledge, as well as the limited availability of research funding from a government that has biased policy interests to preserve.
Admittedly, the existence of bias in scientific research – which is always present — does not mean the research is necessarily wrong. But as I often remind people, it’s much easier to be wrong than right in science. This is because, while the physical world works in only one way, we can dream up a myriad ways by which we think it works. And they can’t all be correct.
So, bias ends up being the enemy of the search for scientific truth because it keeps us from entertaining alternative hypotheses for how the physical world works. It increases the likelihood that our conclusions are wrong.
The IPCC’s Bias
In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change.
The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC’s message with their particular fields of research.
Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.
I believe that most of the hundreds of scientists supporting the IPCC’s efforts are just playing along, assured of continued funding. In my experience, they are either: (1) true believers in The Cause; (2) think we need to get away from using fossil fuels anyway; or (3) rationalize their involvement based upon the non-zero chance of catastrophic climate change.
My Biases
I am up front about my biases: I think market forces will take care of the fact that “fossil” fuels are (probably) a limited resource. Slowly increasing scarcity will lead to higher prices, which will make alternative energy research more attractive. This is more efficient that trying to legislate new forms of energy into existence.
I also think currently proposed energy policies will cause widespread death and suffering. The IPCC not only destroys scientific objectivity and scientific progress, it also destroys lives.
Therefore, I view it as my moral duty to support the “forgotten science” of natural climate change, a class of alternative hypotheses that have all but been ignored by the IPCC and government funding agencies.
I hope I am correct that most climate change we have experienced is natural. But I also know that “hoping” doesn’t make it so. If I had new scientific evidence that human-caused climate change really was a threat to life on Earth, I would publish it. It would sure be easier to publish than evidence against.
But from everything I’ve seen, I still think Nature probably rules, and that humans (as part of nature) also have some unknown level influence on climate. We know that the existence of trees affects climate – why not the existence of humans?
Countering the Bias
Scientists are human, and so you will never remove the tendencies toward bias in scientific research. You can’t change human nature.
But you can level the playing field by supporting alternative biases.
For years John Christy and I have been advising Congress that some portion of the appropriated funds for federal agencies supporting climate change research should be mandated to support alternative hypotheses of climate change. It’s time for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way.
After all, scientists will go where the money is. If scientists are funded to find evidence of natural sources of climate change, believe me, they will find it.
If you build such a playing field, they will come.
But when only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. “the science is settled”), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench. Everyone except the IPCC leadership, that is.
Well, at least it’s linked here for posterity.
The lid has really been blown off the conspiracy at this point, and yes, it *is* a conspiracy, and it has been going on in earnest at least since the 1970s, with Paul R. Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” fantasy, which, not surprisingly, demanded almost the same demands that the MMGW crowd demand today.
Political power and money, while subjecting humanity to forced rationing, government control and dependency, and general deprivation not inflicted on the self appointed “elites” that are exempt from such limitations.
The best way to respond to such things is *not* by confronting them with scientific truth, because they neither know nor care what the scientific truth is. They have an agenda, a “cause”, which is all that matters to them. Corrupted science is just a veneer they use to achieve this.
So we should all re-write what they say, to what it really means. Here is an example:
*********
“THE CAUSE” already is causing suffering and conflict in Africa, from “THE CAUSE” in Sudan and Somalia to “THE CAUSE” in South Africa, President Jacob Zuma said Monday, urging delegates at an international “THE CAUSE” conference to look beyond national interests for “THE CAUSE”.
The South African leader formally opened a two-week conference with participants from 191 countries and the European Union.
The conference is seeking ways to advance “THE CAUSE”, which scientists said last week have reached record levels of “THE CAUSE”.
Seasoned non-government observers said the outcome of the “THE CAUSE” conference, which ends Dec. 9, is among the most unpredictable since the annual all-nation meetings began following the conclusion in 1992 of the basic treaty on “THE CAUSE”.
“Everything seems to be fluid. Everything is in play,” said Tasneem Essop, of “THE CAUSE” International.
The curtain has been pulled, the door has been opened and the veil has been lifted. The nightmare scenario of the AGW alarmists has come to pass...EXPOSURE.
They thought they had the world govts all sewn up having put the "right people" in power to bring down the "big hammers" of blind obedience upon the populations.
There is no demand to do so.
Hence, we can conclude that man-made global warming is part of a scam to acquire power and wealth, and is best ignored.
Cockroaches are better than these fake scientists.
At least cockroaches hide when the lights are shined on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.