Common methodological flaws in climate change denial

[StraitTalk]

Preface: The Guardian publishes articles in support of the below theory almost exclusively. Something to be aware of.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ian-papers

Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?

This new study was authored by Rasmus Benestad, myself (Dana Nuccitelli), Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook. Benestad (who did the lion’s share of the work for this paper) created a tool using the R programming language to replicate the results and methods used in a number of frequently-referenced research papers that reject the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. In using this tool, we discovered some common themes among the contrarian research papers.

Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions. For example, in the discussion of a 2011 paper by Humlum et al. in our supplementary material, we note,

The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.

When we tried to reproduce their model of the lunar and solar influence on the climate, we found that the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes. The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.

We found that the ‘curve fitting’ approach also used in the Humlum paper is another common theme in contrarian climate research. ‘Curve fitting’ describes taking several different variables, usually with regular cycles, and stretching them out until the combination fits a given curve (in this case, temperature data). It’s a practice I discuss in my book, about which mathematician John von Neumann once said,

With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

Good modeling will constrain the possible values of the parameters being used so that they reflect known physics, but bad ‘curve fitting’ doesn’t limit itself to physical realities. For example, we discuss research by Nicola Scafetta and Craig Loehle, who often publish papers trying to blame global warming on the orbital cycles of Jupiter and Saturn.

This particular argument also displays a clear lack of plausible physics, which was another common theme we identified among contrarian climate research. In another example, Ferenc Miskolczi argued in 2007 and 2010 papers that the greenhouse effect has become saturated, but as I also discuss in my book, the ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ myth was debunked in the early 20th century. As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth.

This represents just a small sampling of the contrarian studies and flawed methodologies that we identified in our paper; we examined 38 papers in all. As we note, the same replication approach could be applied to papers that are consistent with the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and undoubtedly some methodological errors would be uncovered. However, these types of flaws were the norm, not the exception, among the contrarian papers that we examined. As lead author Rasmus Benestad wrote,

we specifically chose a targeted selection to find out why they got different answers, and the easiest way to do so was to select the most visible contrarian papers ... Our hypothesis was that the chosen contrarian paper was valid, and our approach was to try to falsify this hypothesis by repeating the work with a critical eye.

If we could find flaws or weaknesses, then we would be able to explain why the results were different from the mainstream. Otherwise, the differences would be a result of genuine uncertainty.

After all this, the conclusions were surprisingly unsurprising in my mind. The replication revealed a wide range of types of errors, shortcomings, and flaws involving both statistics and physics.

You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.

If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors. Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form. Instead, as our paper shows, the contrarians have presented a variety of contradictory alternatives based on methodological flaws, which therefore have failed to convince scientific experts.

Human-caused global warming is the only exception. It’s based on overwhelming, consistent scientific evidence and has therefore convinced over 97% of scientific experts that it’s correct.

[I Think]

Perhaps the best post I have seen on Castanet.
Certainly the best post on the subject.
Thank you.
Unfortunately it is not likely to change any minds, but it should.

[highway001]

I want to echo that sentiment. Thank you for posting and sharing.

10/10

[Glacier]

Damn, this is the internet, so we can't just be all in agreement. ha ha.

Okay, so let's provide a bit of a counterargument. First, Galilao was not in trouble with the Catholic Church over science, rather, he insulted the pope. In other words, it was a political reasons he was excommunicated, not over a disagreement with science.

Second, in any counter-argument sort of situation you always have a wide swath of reasons for disagreeing. We could take religion for one. You have well thought out intellectual arguments against religion as well as many others completely off their rocker kinds of arguments (Zeitgeist Movement sort of stuff). It is nice to provide an alternative theory, but a skeptic does not have to do that. All he as to do is find a case where the data does not match the theory (therefore, the theory is wrong).

Third, the 97% consensus study was flawed. It's a cherry picked number of papers. Sure, maybe all had dissenting views had flaws, but maybe all the pro-AGW studies did as well. Or maybe the authors lumped in the agnostic papers in with the pro-AGW papers, leaving only a few of the worst case extremely out there papers as the dissenting ones. At that point, of course they're likely to have flaws. The way the questions are framed leads to the result you want. If you want 97% consensus you ask a broad question such that even moderate skeptics look like they agree with you.

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/0 ... e-science/

[I Think]

Glacier wrote;

The way the questions are framed leads to the result you want.

I don't think they asked questions, they tried to replicate the results using scientific methods, and were unable to.

[Jlabute]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/n ... -monckton/

Found this interesting. Funny article coming from dana

[Glacier]

I don't think they asked questions, they tried to replicate the results using scientific methods, and were unable to.

That may be true, but almost every claim I've investigated in favour of CAGW is also false. Maybe both sides are totally out to lunch.

Here we are at the 10 year anniversary of Katrina, so let's investigate some of the claims made at that time: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/a ... -hurricane

[I Think]

Despite this paper with its roots in scientific methodology, people still want to believe that which is convenient.
No one has posted anything to refute the facts set out in this peer reviewed paper.

[Glacier]

The article basically says that they looked at a handful of papers that dismissed the AGW theory, and that they all contained errors. Since I haven't looked at them myself, I can only assume that this is true. Okay, but what does that mean? That all arguments again AGW are false? Hardly! Remember, the 97% consensus study itself was highly flawed.

[I Think]

The authors of the paper, examined the 38 most commonly referred to AGW papers and found that each of the 38 was in error due to ignoring facts, cherry picking data etc.
The could not replicate the results, which is the whole nut of scientific research. You may be able to refute their findings by testing their hypothesis but anything else is just babble.
That is not a handful, it is the whole ball of wax. Global warming is a fact, and we better start preparing for it.
Cute cartoons do not make facts.

[highway001]

[I Think]

That coupled with the first post in this thread, should be obligatory watching/reading for any sceptics about human caused global warming.

Global warming QED.

Unfortunately when a US congressman shows up with a snowball in his hand, and claims it proves global warming is a myth, we are in trouble.

[StraitTalk]

Remember, the 97% consensus study itself was highly flawed.

This is exactly the kind of cherry-picking referred to in the OP. 18 of some of the most accredited scientific organizations in America surrounding geology, geophysics, meteorology and climate science have very clear statements about what they're observing.

The link you provided is a blog. I'm not saying there's nothing there - but hardly anything credible comes out of blogs. I certainly don't want to read it.

[Glacier]

Cherry picking and you haven't even read it? That's okay I guess. Few people deny that climate change is happening because it sure is. Here are some examples.

How precipitation has changed in BC since 1950:


Here is a graph showing the average summer temperature in BC from 1895 to 2015. The red line shows the 10 year average:


Okay, people who say the earth hasn't warmed or that BC hasn't warmed are clearly living on another planet. However, people who say that the warming will be catastrophic or that the extremes are getting more severe are living on that same planet. This graph shows the 16 most extreme cold snaps and the 16 most extreme heat waves in BC's history. One extreme or severe event is being replaced with another:


The question is not whether or not studies have flaws, but rather whether or not anyone has been able to peg any sort of correlation with catastrophic weather events on climate change. So far no one has.

[I Think]

Glacier writes;

but rather whether or not anyone has been able to peg any sort of correlation with catastrophic weather events on climate change

Disappointed at the tone, I Think writes, you don't think the melting of glaciers world around in one lifetime (instead of the thousands of years it has taken in the past) is a correlation with catastrophic weather events???
Give your head a shake, your kids are not going to thank you for refusing to see that glaciers are receding!
Coral dying because of warming oceans. Antarctic sea ice increasing because the sea is being diluted by rapidly melting antarctic glaciers, trees dying because bugs are not being killed because the winters do not get as cold for as long.
We need another cartoon to convince us that human caused warming is not a fact.