BewaConsensus Science

>
> Biologists were able to do it with respect to
> creationists because they could marshall the evidence rather than
> invoking the tactics I've witnesses recently.

No, actually, creationists are still around. The tactics
biologists have used to win their case to the public (evolution is now
the foundation of just about every field of biology) resembles very closely
the "consensus-based" thinking in climate science. You've probably
read Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shifts and revolutions in science
- if you haven't, I'd recommend it, though it's not a completely
accurate description of the process. It does indicate exactly
how development of scientific consensus, even when previous
"paradigms" cannot be directly (at least easily) refuted, is a key
in scientific progress. Philip Kitcher's book on the conduct of science
(don't have title to hand here) is also very instructive in explicitly
modeling this process of communication and convincing that goes
on among scientists, to the point a consensus develops. It's
a very sound process, though it can sometimes be slow to act (the
worst recent example is the consensus among geologists against
continental drift until the 1960's). But there are none of the indicators
of an impending paradigm shift in climate science - the consensus
is very solid.

>
> I see the same tactics used when I visit leftist blogs and websites.
> Dissent and inquiry are suppressed and everyone is expected to get
> with the program. That type of mentality scares me to the core.

Uh, cliquishness is not confined to the left. Science, at least, has
a lot of mechanisms to suppress that defect of human nature.

Here's one link on the Climate Research case:

http://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000058.php
"``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch, editor-in-chief
of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the journal's peer review
procedure failed to identify methodological flaws in the study.

However, owners of the magazine, which is published in Germany, refused
to allow him to write an editorial saying the paper was flawed, Von Storch
said in an e-mail to Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt. Cox Newspapers reported
in May that the paper was underwritten by the American Petroleum
Institute and promoted by nonprofit organizations that receive support
from energy interests, primarily ExxonMobil Corp. "

"three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over the journal's
handling of the review process that approved the study; among them is
Hans von Storch, the journal's recently appointed editor in chief.
""It was flawed and it shouldn't have been published," he said."

Here are the words of the journal's editor in chief himself, who
resigned over the fact that the PUBLISHER OF THE JOURNAL WOULD NOT
LET THE EDITOR IN CHIEF PUBLISH AN EDITORIAL!!!

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

"After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I
stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research;
the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make
public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error,
and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order
to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed;
important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment
in EOS by Mann and several coauthors. (The problem is not whether the
Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann's hockey
stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for
such a conclusion was simply not given.) It was not the first time that
the process had failed, but it was the most severe case. However, my
authority as Editor-in-Chief did obviously not cover the publication
of an editorial spelling out the problem. The publisher declined the
publication, and I cancelled my task as Editor-in-Chief immediately
on 28 July 2003.

I withdrew also als editor because I learned during the conflict that
CR editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article.
Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as
merely a problem of "opinion", while it was really a problem of severe
methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from
that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years.

Today I am not longer related to the journal Climate Research in any
way. Only the review process of those manuscripts, for which I initiated
the review process, will be completed by me. After that I will be
completely detached.

Three more editors withdrew namely Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando and Shardul
Argawala. In mid September 2003 Andrew Comrie resigned as well."

As to computer modeling - it's getting pretty good. Sufficiently so that the
fastest computer in the world is devoted not to nuclear weapons
studies, but to climate modeling - Japan's "Earth Simulator", when deployed
faster than the 20 fastest US computers combined:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/20/tech/main506797.shtml

Obviously it's very hard to test a climate model prediction for future
change against the future, because it hasn't happened yet. And the
time scales on which you can even measure "climate" (as opposed to
yearly weather variations) are really decades, which makes direct
comparison of prediction and result difficult.

But climate models are routinely calibrated against tons of past
data - here for example is one comparison:
http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Research/PaleoClm/DataMode/DataMode.htm

which compares past data on plant types (from pollen counts) and lake levels
with climate model results for the past 20,000+ years. Lots of good
science is done this way.

But I'm really no expert - I truly fail to see why there seems
to be such mistrust of the real experts here. What direct evidence
do you have, other than "attitude", and the various rumors you've
traded on, that climate scientists have done anything at all dishonest?

Arthur