- Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes.
- Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
- It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
onsdag 9 december 2009
Scientific Academies Controled by Authority
Over and over in the climate debate we hear politicians say that they rely on the authority of scientific academies such as the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences as concerns AGW. This is logical since science is authoritarian in the sense that the truth is decided by scientists and not the people or politicians. Scientific truth is not determined by democratic vote by the people, but by scientific arguments between scientists.
If the Earth is flat or not is not decided in a referendum or in a parliament. Nor is the outcome of a soccer match.
The term scientific consensus is thus in principle contradictory, since factual truth is not even within the group of scientists decided by majority voting, only by scientific facts and arguments using the scientific method.
In practice however, the term scientific consensus is used heavily as a support of AGW alarmism. It is thus claimed that there is scientific consensus on potentially catastrophical AGW on the basis that scientific academies support this view.
This gives the Royal Swedish Academy the important role to decide the truth. So how is this done? By scientific arguments between knowledgable scientists using the scientific method?
Unfortunately not, and this is very unfortunate for the credibility of science and scientists.
Instead of living up to its responsibility, the Royal Swedish Academy thus relies on the political IPCC panel. Now IPPC claims to rely on scientific consensus of scientific academies, but in reality relies on a small group of scientists, which are not using the scientific method as demonstrated in Climategate.
This is a potentially very dangerous self-propelling system, where the control of scientific reason has been lost. This is what we now see happening in Copenhagen.
When a Royal Academy of Sciences turns from science to politics, its role is being lost. Why is then the Royal Academy giving up its most valuable asset: science and scientific credibility, threatening to eliminate itself?
Is this a crisis of science itself, or only the organization of science? Or both?
Is the Academy forced to support AGW alarmism by political pressure, or is the Academy tempted by monetary or other gains? Or is jit ust general indifference to scientific values?
Ingemar Nordin, professor of theory of science, points to the fact that the Royal Swedish Academy is controled by authority, the authority of IPCC as concerns climate science. But scientists cannot, should not, be controled by authority, only by scientific facts and arguments. An academy controled by authority is not a Scientific Academy, but rather a religious College of Cardinals.
But there is hope: Today 141 climate scientists sends an open letter to UN Secretary General
that the science is not settled:
and thus disagree with the official statement of the Academy: David Gee, Wibjörn Karlen and Björn Malmgren.
Thus there is no scientific consensus, not even within the Royal Academy, which can be used as support of political decisions. This video by a 6-th grader showing no warming at rural sites and but some warming at urban sites, should be watched by the Academy. It is all unraveling now!
To make this clear the Royal Academy has to stop giving in to the authority of IPCC.
You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand that climate science as a science has collapsed. Even politicians are able to understand this, unless they are driven by a hidden agenda to prevent poor countries to use fossil fuel. This is becoming increasingly understood by developing countries.
Roger Pielke's presentation at the Alternative Climate Conference in Copenhagen is now available. New York Times report from the event gives hope, for serious science and serious scientists.
The Royal Academy should also contemplate JoNovas The Climategate Virus.