Smoke and Mirrors in the Climate Science Game

[Part 1 of a 5 part series examining the so-called "consensus" in the climate science community, the scientists who dare dissent from political correctness and a new, less partisan way to promote rational climate policy] We are told by activists, politicians, media and official science bodies that climate change science is 'settled', our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are causing a climate crisis and we must take action to prevent dangerous global warming. Supposedly, only a handful of unqualified naysayers contest this conclusion.

---

For example, at the Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society (CMOS)/Canadian Geophysical Union (CGU) public lecture in Ottawa on June 2, a British Antarctic Survey (BAS) film was featured that asserted, "... Earth scientists are now beginning to understand ... how to deal with unprecedented levels of manmade carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that control future climate change. " Newcastle University (U.K.) Professor Nicholas Owens, Director of both the BAS film ("Polar Science for Planet Earth") and the BAS proper, asserts "There is now overwhelming consensus that human activity is driving climate change," a statement echoed verbatim in the film. Another BAS leader, Prof Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia maintains, "The only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO₂ emissions." Besides the absurdity of the notion that humanity, at this stage in our development, could hope to "control climate change" of planet Earth, observant readers will ask: how does anyone know that there is a consensus among climate scientists that our CO₂ emissions are driving global climate, let alone that they are causing a crisis? After all, climate was changing for billions of years before we arrived on the scene. Are all the ancient natural climate drivers suddenly being eclipsed by human CO₂ emissions? No one knows for sure, although much recent research suggests it is highly improbable. It is also true that no one knows, or even currently can know, what the so-called "consensus" is in the world climate science community about whether our CO₂ emissions are causing a climate crisis. This is because there is not known to have been a conclusive worldwide poll about the topic among the thousands of scientists from the vast array of disciplines related to understanding the causes of global climate change. Scientific theories are never proven by a show of hands, of course, no matter how scientifically esteemed those expressing their views are. If it were otherwise, the Earth would still be considered flat and space travel impossible. It is indeed those who go against the flow - independent, original thinkers - who are usually responsible for our most meaningful advances in science. But, most reporters, politicians and the public understand little of the scientific method and even less about the exceptionally complex field of climate change science. Consequently, they often look for an indication of 'consensus' when trying to decide which science should form the basis of important public policies decisions. Distasteful though this is to pure scientists, it is a reality we need to recognize and it is therefore important to try to decide whether a reliable determination of 'consensus' has been made about the causes of climate change. First, it is important to realize that, of the prominent national and international science bodies that have issued official statements that are truly in support of the CO₂/climate crisis hypothesis, none are known to have released results that show a majority of their members agreeing with the assertion. Since the Canadian Geophysical Union (CGU) seems to have at least tried with the pre-Copenhagen Climate Conference open letter to the Government of Canada they endorsed along with four other organizations, CMOS included, it is worth examining the letter's contents closely (while wondering what special knowledge two of the signing societies, the Canadian Society of Soil Science and the Canadian Society of Zoologists, would have about the causes of global climate change). At first glance, the letter appears to pass muster. On the Web page dedicated to the five societies' open letter, is stated: "This letter was overwhelmingly endorsed by councils or members of the following organizations of scientists", followed by a list of the five societies. In an article published across Canada entitled "3,000 scientists tell federal government to 'act now' on climate change", CanWest News Service writer, Margaret Munro writes, "The letter is signed by the presidents of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society [CMOS], the Canadian Geophysical Union [CGU], the Canadian Association of Physicists, the Canadian Society of Soil Science and the Canadian Society of Zoologists. They represent more than 3,000 researchers, including experts studying how rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are altering the planet's climate and ecosystems." There are problems with this, however. While 91% of CGU members who voted supported the letter, less than a third (31%) of the membership actually voted, leaving the letter supported by just over one quarter (28%) of the members. So, CGU support was not a result of an 'overwhelming' (or even a majority) endorsement from its members. It must then have just been an overwhelming majority of the CGU council who supported it, which is of course far less significant since group-think can easily dominate such small entities. Group-think may very well have played a significant role in CMOS' endorsement of the open letter since we are told on their Web site that "This letter was approved through a vote by members of CMOS Council and Scientific Committee." Of the 50 positions in these groups, CMOS says 100% voted in support. What about the hundreds of rank and file members of CMOS? Perhaps they do not support the letter at all. The other endorsing societies do not release signing statistics on their Web pages (or even mention the letter at all) so it is not apparent that members of the other groups were even polled, let alone that an "overwhelming" majority of them supported it. So the headline on Munro's article is totally unsubstantiated, yet all then-President of CMOS Dr. Bill Crawford wrote about this in the "From the President's desk" section of their Web site is "The English headline noted these societies have over 3000 members." Why did he not correct CanWest's misrepresentation? Similarly, Munro's assertion "They represent more than 3,000 researchers, including experts studying how rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are altering the planet's climate and ecosystems" is misleading. Unless she is privy to information not readily apparent to the public, she would have no way of knowing how many of the thousands of researchers were even asked about the five societies' letter, let alone how many actually agreed with it. While these groups do indeed include "experts studying how rising carbon dioxide levels ...are altering the planet's climate ... ", the vast majority of the membership of these societies focus on entirely different topics and so would lack the expertise to assess this question. In fact, two of the signing societies', the Canadian Society of Soil Science and the Canadian Society of Zoologists, may very well have no one in their groups at all who professionally study the causes of global climate change. The open letter to the Government of Canada from these five societies is no worse than many of the other documents of its kind that the public have been bombarded with in recent years. In fact, it may be more representative of the opinions of these societies' memberships than other open letters and declarations that I will examine in the next part of this series. However, we simply don't know and so are no closer to substantiating the commonly asserted claims of consensus than before. We need to dig more deeply. [Coming in Part 2: Are we being tricked? Other scientific society statements that have little known membership support]