We must be open to climate views

Last month, The Guardian's Graham Readfearn lamented that "wrongheaded and simplistic views on climate denialism are a regular feature on the letters page of many newspapers".

On his Planet Oz blog, he added that if "a newspaper or other media outlet is publishing content which it knows is factually questionable or demonstrably wrong, does it have a responsibility to keep such pseudo-science statements off its pages?".

Readfearn is absolutely correct to ask where a newspaper should strike the balance and how to administer that balance. Not all views merit equal weighting. But it is important to remain open to a range of different viewpoints in order to advance a more nuanced discourse about climate science.

There is a premise underlying the politics of democratic institutions that a majority opinion is best. It sometimes leads to crazy outcomes, but on the whole it has proved to be the best system for government. Scarce research funds, including for climate science, are also allocated using the same democratic or consensus principles in Western countries.

Yet consensus is not the way that the scientific method works. Consensus is anathema to the scientific method. The scientific method involves continual testing and retesting of experimentally testable hypotheses in a process that leads to refining of current hypotheses and occasionally to major (paradigm) shifts in hypotheses.

In the past, political or religious ideology has often determined what was taught. The scientific method has won out in most instances, but it has never been easy. An example is the Lysenko affair in the USSR, which severely retarded Soviet capability in biological sciences.

Trofim Lysenko, the director of the Institute of Genetics from 1940-1965 within the USSR's Academy of Sciences during Stalinist times, taught anti-Mendelian doctrines of genetics. He succeeded in having scientific dissent from his theories formally outlawed in 1948.

This is only subtly different from what the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and The Guardian are advocating (and practising) regarding anthropogenic global warming climate change.

It is not that the warmist theories have no validity. It is that the bulk of people who advocate for them deny any validity for those who disagree with them. Science does not, and should not, work like this.

Interestingly, a version of Lysenko's non-Mendelian theories - epigenetics - is now an accepted paradigm. This is a result of non-ideological scientific research. The Guardian should desist from using "denier" when describing those people who disagree with the current scientific paradigm as broadcast by itself, the IPCC and other media outlets. The word denier is clearly associated with denial of the Holocaust in the minds of many of us familiar with 20th-century history.

The Guardian should be leading discussion, not playing the censorship card. There are many qualified climate scientists whose views are in synch with the IPCC. There are also many persons with some knowledge in the area and many more persons with no ability in the area who agree with it.

There are many reputable climate scientists, however, who do not agree with the IPCC paradigm. These include, but are certainly not limited to, Freeman Dyson, Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Nigel Calder, James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis), Roy Spencer, Stephen McIntyre, Richard Lindzen (meteorologist, lead author IPCC AR3) and Ivar Giaever (Nobel laureate in chemistry).

There are some questions that should be asked by any thoughtful person who is interested in AGW climate change. Thoughtful persons can appreciate what are key questions, even if they do not possess a specialist scientific knowledge.

In the same way, persons such as myself who help judge the awarding of scarce competitively allocated funds for scientific projects cannot possibly have a specialised knowledge in all of the subjects they are adjudicating. However, such persons are able to logically reason their way around the key issues.

Frustratingly, it appears that the key questions on AGW climate science are not being asked by thoughtful non-specialist people because the same people have been encouraged to believe that the science is too complicated for them, and because they have been told that all expert climate scientists agree with the IPCC's position of certainty as regards AGW climate change.

Here are four key linked questions:

1. Is the rate of climate change increasing? Change is what climate does, so one does not need to be a climate scientist to deduce that it is important to address the question of whether the rate of change has increased. The IPCC has little to say on this scientifically, but continues to use phrases such as "unprecedented" global warming in its executive summaries.
2. Is a significant portion of climate change determined by human activity? Although our human footprint is heavy, it is not the only influence on climate. Scientists in the field of climate research refer to these influences as "forcings". Forcings can be terrestrial or extraterrestrial. The CO2 greenhouse effect is an example of a terrestrial forcing.
3. Is climate change significantly affected by human CO2 output, which nearly all warmists and sceptics agree is increasing? The IPCC modelling for the CO2 forcing effect has consistently grossly overestimated its effect on global warming.
4. If CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, then what should be done to combat it?

It is important for alternative views to be heard because an uncritical adherence to the AGW climate change paradigm could be siphoning off squillions that would be better spent on more important research and actions for the good of humanity and our Earth. A blinkered adherence to combating "the evils of CO2" can lead to solutions that do no good and may cause harm.

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/we-must-be-open-to-climate-views/story-e6frgd0x-1226756896514#sthash.clL2zpFQ.dpuf