1. science

Anatomy of a Collapsing Climate Paradigm
David Middleton / 26 mins ago
Guest post by David Middleton
Paradigm:
A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly
accepted by members of a scientific community.
Paradigm Shift:
These examples point to the third and most fundamental aspect of the incommensurability of competing
paradigms. In a sense that I am unable to explicate further, the proponents of competing paradigms
practice their trades in different worlds. One contains constrained bodies that fall slowly, the other
pendulums that repeat their motions again and again. In one, solutions are compounds, in the other
mixtures. One is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different
worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same
direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the
world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things, and they see
them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one
group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another. Equally, it is why, before they
can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have
been calling a paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the transition
between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience.
Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.
–Thomas Kuhn, 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Vol. II, No. 2 p. 150
What is the current paradigm?

Human activities, primarily carbon dioxide emissions, have been the primary cause of the observed
global warming over the past 50 to 150 years.

The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had stabilized between 270 and 280 ppmv early in the
Holocene and had remained in that range prior to the mid-19th century when fossil fuels became the
primary energy source of the Industrial Revolution.

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing the atmospheric concentration to rise at a
dangerously rapid pace to levels not seen in 100’s of thousands to millions of years.

The climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration “is likely to be in
the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than
1.5°C,” possibly even much higher than 4.5°C.
Immediate, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary in order to stave off catastrophic
climate change.


The scientific consensus regarding this paradigm is overwhelming (~97%).
Why is the paradigm collapsing?

There has been no increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature since the late 20th century.

Every measure of pre-industrial carbon dioxide, not derived from Antarctic ice cores, indicates
a higher and more variable atmospheric concentration.
The total lack of predictive skill in AGW climate models.



An ever-growing body of observation-based studies indicating that the climate sensitivity is in the
range of 0.5 to 2.5°C with a best estimate of 1.5 to 2°C, and is very unlikely to be more than 2°C.
Clear evidence that the dogmatic insistence of scientific unanimity is at best highly contrived and at
worst fraudulent.
The paradigm is collapsing primarily due to the fact that the climate appears to be far less sensitive to
changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than the so-called scientific consensus had
assumed.
One group of scientists has steadfastly resisted the carbon dioxide-driven paradigm: Geologists,
particularly petroleum geologists. As Kuhn wrote,
“Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the
same point in the same direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both
are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different
things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be
demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another.”
Petroleum geologists tend to be sedimentary geologists and sedimentary geology is essentially a
combination of paleogeography and paleoclimatology. Depositional environments are defined by
physical geography and climate. We literally do practice in a different world, the past. Geologists
intuitively see Earth processes as cyclical and also tend to look at things from the perspective of “deep
time.” For those of us working the Gulf of Mexico, we “go to work” in a world defined
by glacioeustatic and halokineticprocesses and, quite frankly, most of us don’t see anything
anomalous in recent climate changes.
So, it should come as little surprise that geoscientists have consistently been far more likely to think
that modern climate changes have been driven by overwhelmingly natural processes…
APEGA is the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and
engineers in Alberta, Canada.
This study is very interesting because it analyzes the frames of reference (Kuhn’s “different worlds”)
in which opinions are formed. Skeptical geologists are most likely to view climate change as
overwhelmingly natural. Skeptical engineers are more likely to view it as a matter of economics or
fatalism. The cost of decarbonization would far outweigh any benefits and/or would have no
measurable effect on climate change.
The Obsession With Consensus
In nearly 40 years as an Earth Scientist (counting college), I have never seen such an obsession with
consensus. In geology, there are many areas in which there are competing hypotheses; yet there is no
obsession with conformance to a consensus.
The acceptance of plate tectonics was a relatively new thing when I was a student. This paradigm had
only recently shifted from the geosynclinal theory to plate tectonics. We still learned the geosynclinal
theory in Historical Geology and it still has value today. However, I don’t ever recall papers being
published claiming a consensus regarding either theory.
Most geologists think that granite is an igneous rock and that petroleum is of organic origin. Yet, the
theories of granitization and abiogenic hydrocarbon formation are not ridiculed; nor are the adherents
subjected to “witch hunts.”
One of the most frequent methods of attempting to quantify and justify the so-called consensus on
climate change has been the abstract search (second hand opinions). I will only bother to review one of
these exercises in logical fallacy, Cook et al., 2013.
Second Hand Opinions.
These sorts of papers consist of abstract reviews. The authors’ then tabulate their opnions regarding
whether or not the abstracts support the AGW paradgm. As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook
defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three
different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed
because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.”
They provided this example of an implied endorsement:
‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’
Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other
things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt
that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.
The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or
minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most
warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the exmple Cook provided:
‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate
change’
Wow! I contributed to Romney for President… Yet most of his campaign warchest didn’t come from
me. By this subjective standard, I have probably explicitly endorsed AGW a few times.
No Schist, Sherlock.
One of the most frequent refrains is the assertion that “climate scientists” endorse the so-called
consensus more than other disciplines and that the level of endorsement is proportional to the volume
of publications by those climate scientists. Well… No schist, Sherlock! I would bet a good bottle of
wine that the most voluminous publishers on UFO’s are disproportionately more likely to
endorse Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a documentary. A cursory search for “abiogenic
hydrocarbons” in AAPG’s Datapages could lead me to conclude that there is a higher level of
endorsement of abiogenic oil among those who publish on the subject than among non-publishing
petroleum geologists.
These exercises in expertise cherry-picking are quite common. A classic example wasDoran and
Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth
Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions
were:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally
risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global
temperatures?
I would answer yes to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a
significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would answer “no.”
Interestingly, economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question
#2…
The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to
question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).
The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is
largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate
processes.
No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a
better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.
The authors close with a “no schist, Sherlock” bar chart:
The most recent example of expertise cherry-picking was Stenhouse et al., 2014.
The 52% consensus among the membership of the American Meteorological Society explained
away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise”
among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…
While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global
warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and
perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may
be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus
norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that
expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.
Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global
warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of
predicted harm caused by global warming.
So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more
liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models. No
schist, Sherlock!
What, exactly, is a “climate scientist”?
35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be
anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers,
astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists,
geologists, geophysicists, geochemistry to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policyologists.
NASA’s top climate scientist for most of the past 35 years, James Hansen, is an astronomer. The
current one, Gavin Schmidt, is a mathematician.
It seems to me that climate science is currently dominated by computer modelers, with little
comprehension of the natural climate cycles which have driven climate change throughout the
Holocene.
Climate scientist seems to be as nebulous as Cook’s definition of consensus.
What is the actual consensus?
The preliminary results of the AMS survey tell us all we need to know about the so-called
consensus…
89% × 59% = 52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus.
Based on BAMS definition, global warming is happening. So, I would be among the 89% who
answered “yes” to question #1 and among the 5% who said the cause was mostly natural.
When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the
results become even more interesting…
Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus. When
compared to the 2009, American Geophysical Union survey, the collapsing paradigm sticks out like a
polar vortex…
In reality, about half of relevant scientists would probably agree that humans have been responsible for
>50% of recent climate changes. And there might even be a 97% consensus that human activities have
contributed to recent climate changes.
However, there really isn’t any scientific consensus if it is defined this way:
So… Why is there such an obsession with a 97% consensus? My guess is that it is to enable such
demagoguery.