Climate science and acts of creation

James Hansen Prof Hansen argues climate change is "loading the dice" of extreme weather

The role of formal scientific processes in climate science appear to be under threat as never before.

Last year, physicist Prof Richard Muller and colleagues published - in the sense of posting material on their website - results from a new project analysing the Earth's temperature record.

The Berkeley Earth (BEST) project basically backed up established temperature records from Nasa and others; the world is indeed warming, and by about as much as we previously thought, it concluded.

Prof Muller was attacked in some quarters for not waiting for the formal process of peer review in a scientific journal before launching the data publicly.

He responded that his method - to put the draft out there openly and let everyone respond who wants to - is increasingly the norm in physics and indeed has always been the norm in string theory, that most arcane of disciplines.

In his view, it's the right way to do things.

A couple of weeks ago, in a New York Times article accompanying the release of five more BEST papers that are being submitted to scientific journals, Prof Muller went further, saying that the majority of 20th Century warming could be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions.

By contrast, analysis by established bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds that only after mid-Century did greenhouse gases drive the warming - prior to that, it was predominantly down to natural causes such as solar cycles and a decline in the frequency of large volcanoes.

Graph The Berkeley group confirmed existing records of global temperature

The original BEST study particularly got up the nose of meteorologist turned sceptic blogger Anthony Watts.

It dismissed the claim he'd made that US weather stations gave an unreliable temperature record because many were badly sited - in places where the extent of heat-reflecting tarmac, for example, had expanded over time.

Also a couple of weeks back, Mr Watts launched a new analysis purporting to show that BEST had it all wrong.

Weather station in Oregon Mr Watts contends that badly-sited US weather stations distort the temperature record

BEST had used an out-of-date methodology for assessing station quality, he argued; use the right one, and you find that US temperatures have risen by only half as much over the last 30 years as Prof Muller and others say it has.

This paper too has been released web-first, on the wattsupwiththat blog, with the aim of formal publication later.

The next development in a busy few days was a Washington Post article penned by Prof James Hansen, the Nasa scientist who has done perhaps more than any other academic down the years to raise the spectre of catastrophic climate change.

It referred to a scientific paper out this week in which he calculates how the incidence of extreme weather events has changed since the middle of the last century.

Using simple statistics rather than computer models, he shows that the frequency of "extreme anomalies" - for the statistically-minded, defined as more than three standard deviations from the mean - has increased 10-fold.

Without climate change, it concludes, last year's drought in Texas and Oklahoma, the 2010 Moscow heatwave, and the 2003 heatwave centred on France wouldn't have happened.

(The article's appearance induced the journal publishing the paper, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, to lift the embargo for reporters, but it doesn't appear to be on their website as yet - sometime this week, presumably.)

Prof Hansen's paper has had a mixed reaction from other researchers.

Prof Andrew Weaver from Canada's University of Victoria said it was an "excellent" piece of work that asked a better-framed question than the one other researchers have posed.

"Rather than say, 'is this because of climate change?' That's the wrong question.

A sign reads '38 degrees centigrade' 2010 brought temperatures 8C above normal to Moscow and other parts of Russia

"What you can say is, 'how likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?' It's so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming."

Prof Myles Allen, the Oxford University climate modeller who has spent 10 years developing the science of climate attribution, said it was "broadly in line" with previous analyses, but that the interpretation "goes further than many scientists are comfortable with".

What's perhaps more remarkable about Prof Hansen's paper is the style.

Rarely if ever have I seen a published scientific paper that states the rationale for its existence so baldly in terms of public perception - specifically, "the need for the public to appreciate the significance of human-made global warming".

"Actions to stem emissions of the gases that cause global warming are unlikely to approach what is needed until the public recognises that human-made climate change is underway and perceives that it will have unacceptable consequences if effective actions are not taken to slow the climate change," the authors write.

Climate change glossary
Select a term to learn more:
Action that helps cope with the effects of climate change - for example construction of barriers to protect against rising sea levels, or conversion to crops capable of surviving high temperatures and drought.

You'd have to be from another planet not to realise that climate science has been the subject of extraordinarily intense political forces over the last few years.

And many scientists involved feel passionately about it.

At its core, though, climate science has been able to retain its identity partly because researchers generally don't give in to passion, instead sticking to formal processes - publication in peer-reviewed journals and the presentation of data and conclusions in strictly academic terms.

It's rapidly becoming more blurred. And the question arises: is this a good thing?

Prof John Christy, the University of Alabama scientist who has taken a position sceptical of "climate catastrophism" down the years while working in the mainstream discipline of compiling temperature records, believes it could be.

Two years ago, he suggested replacing the monolithic procedures of the IPCC with a "wiki" approach.

And he tells me now that he got involved with the Anthony Watts exercise partly because it "would be an interesting experiment for me in which the paper was 'cloud reviewed' and then rewritten to accommodate important new information before being submitted [to an academic journal]... I'm wondering if this is the way 'review' in the digital age will unfold as time goes on."

Man pours water on head Heatwaves in Greece and elsewhere are down to climate change, the new paper claims

Prof Christy makes the distinction - crucial to scientists - between draft papers for discussion and final, complete ones that go into academic journals and become part of the formal literature of science.

But how clear is that distinction to the public that Mr Watts, Prof Hansen and Prof Muller are trying to influence?

And if it's not clear, how does the new model benefit public understanding?

Peer review is far from perfect - especially in a politicised arena such as climate science where some journals exist with a specific, directed slant on the issue.

Energy and Environment, for example, proclaims itself "a forum for more sceptical analyses of 'climate change'".

Creationists have attempted to clothe themselves in scientific garb down the years by establishing publications designed to look and feel like scientific journals.

The Journal of Creation, for example, says it is a peer-reviewed journal but clearly comes with a specific aim - to combat the problem that "creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing".

Well, clearly the "evolutionary worldview" ought to dominate scientific journals - because a vast amount of evidence testifies to the fact it's real.

But you can create a parallel world where it isn't, if you really try.

With all its flaws, publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals is the best mechanism science has yet devised for ensuring that the findings and conclusions reaching the public ear remain above a certain quality threshold.

String theorists can perhaps afford to take a different tack, because - with all due respect - it doesn't make any practical difference to anyone in the wider world who's right and who's wrong in that particular discipline.

But with climate science, it does. It matters a lot.

Is it really time to throw the traditions away? And if it is, whose interests would that serve?

Richard Black Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 207.



    Contrarian consensus it is that regulation is a commie conspiracy and they will vote for any politician who promises to lower taxes, no matter how fundi.. there is no Contrarian consensus on science because their objections are political not would be like trying to herd cats if they couldn't shout lower taxes, conspiracy and 9/11 on a regular basis..

  • rate this

    Comment number 206.


    First off stop putting people in boxes

    Secondly, what makes you think that there is only one serious challenge to the theory, who decided that the theory can only be wrong on one point? By what authority?

    If it was well evidenced and well established then there would not be so many areas of contention

    If there is a sceptical consensus it's that the theory is yet to be proven

  • rate this

    Comment number 205.


    ..'at the time McIntyre was haranguing Briffa and Osborn, McIntyre had actually had the raw Yamal data for over 2 years (again, unmentioned on Climate Audit), and he had had them for over 5 years when he declared that he had finally got them in 2009..'

    ..not as sad as conspiracy theorists....

  • rate this

    Comment number 204.

    Ah the truth is out Lamna is jusy another Joe Romm wannabe, hating Anthony Watts because unlike the 'team' he's looking at hard evidence rather than politically massaged data whose origins are kept secret even following multiple FOI requests. The end is coming for AGW and its acolytes know it. That's why they exaggerate any weather incident and ignore inconvenient data. So sad!

  • rate this

    Comment number 203.

    I'm confused. Some claim the Earth isn't warming. Others claim the Earth is warming, but it's not the fault of CO2. Some others claim the Earth is warming, it is the fault of CO2, but it's not man-made.

    So, which one is it? If there’s supposed to be a serious challenge to the well-established & well-evidenced theory of climate change, then there must be a consensus amongst those challenging it!

  • rate this

    Comment number 202.


    Its not libelous, its calling funding what it is, funding.. when Watts has used the term "funding".

    Gotta love the way Watts equates WUWT, with a major scientific Institution and whines that he gets less funding
    I would suggest the funding he gets, reflects the quality of WUWT's output..where one guest writer admitted he was going to a party and so his 'article' might not be accurate..

  • rate this

    Comment number 201.

    @198 Here we go again
    Do you really expect any of us here to ignore data and evidence because of who is probably funding who?

    You are sorely mistaken, the gullible and the credulous have left the debate, better stick to science

    @187 You are obviously new to this debate

    -"May be about right" is not good enough
    -Evidence trumps inference
    -The warming trend does not invalidate any of my arguments

  • rate this

    Comment number 200.


    I missed it out because its irrelevant opinion.. McIntyre is supposedly a co-author of "Anthony's project" yet he doesn't say 'our project' and apparently the co-author is suggesting he doesn't even know the results of "Anthony's project"..."whatever they may be"

    That is fairly odd coming from a co-author..indeed it appears to be carefully putting distance between McIntyre..and ground zero

  • rate this

    Comment number 199.

    @198 Funding for a one off project, yes, as acknowledged several times

    Funding as in your implied suggestion that Watts is on the Heartland payroll - no

    and to suggest otherwise is a slur and could be considered libelous

    But this is off topic, so no point in responding further

  • rate this

    Comment number 198.


    "..Doing this requires programming, system design, and bandwidth, which isn’t free and I could not do on my own. Compare the funding I asked for initially.." - Anthony Watts, February 15, 2012

    So Watts himself calls it 'funding', couldn't have done it on his own and asked for the "funding".. that is funding, as in "funding".

    Glad we cleared that up :)

  • rate this

    Comment number 197.


    You missed

    " a real contribution"

    immediately after

    "Anthony’s project..."


    "Anthony’s project is a real contribution"

    Dare I ask for a response to #102?

  • rate this

    Comment number 196.

    "Anthony's project...whatever the eventual results".. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from 'co-author' McIntyre, eh?..

    Hypocrisy at its finest.. I will continue to meet gladiatorial debate, in the arena as usual.. its called a level playing field.. oh wait.. Watts calls it 'satire'...

  • rate this

    Comment number 195.

    @193 I'm not denying my response and have indicated my reasons for the response

    Now, how about a response to my reasonable questions in #102?


  • rate this

    Comment number 194.


    Ah! So the truth will out.

    HI don't fund Watts. HI only helped fund server space for a project to help the general public access clearly and easily the data their tax dollars paid for

    Glad we cleared that up :)

  • rate this

    Comment number 193.

    @189 -

    No, that was your first post, you then got a number of cogent responses, including the reference to constructive criticism from Skep Science, who were exceptionally polite about the flaws in Watts' study.. and your response was to leave the snarky reply previously quoted..

  • rate this

    Comment number 192.

    Watts is paper, if you actually read it , reveals the obvious. Why is it obvious ? Because if you look at what happened when the Soviet Union collapsed and 1/3 of the worlds surface stations got switched off overnight is shows something stark. His paper is only about the US but 1989 shows the validity of his work. What is less obvious about his findings is the more disturbing in my opinion.

  • rate this

    Comment number 191.

    189 cont.. Responses from RC

    "Well, it would be if there were two sides to the debate"
    "I will not add grist to his mill. I do not work with those I do not trust, and I see no reason to do either here."

    Hence my response to readers of RC "So, yes, it is too much to ask"

  • rate this

    Comment number 190.

    Heartland helped fund server space for Watts, therefore Watts is funded by Heartland, I never said they stuck a wad of dollar bills down his shirt and told him to go and buy himself something nice...

  • rate this

    Comment number 189.

    @185 Again you write what you think, rather than what was said

    I said at RC:

    "... This may not be traditional peer review, but there is a real opportunity for both sides of the debate to make a contribution.

    What if Watts point is valid? Would it be too much to ask for readers of RC to offer constructive criticism, which could either improve the paper or bury it?"

    Responses in 10 mins

  • rate this

    Comment number 188.

    common alarmist stange behaviour to care who funds what !?!? who cares so long as its tight science.... the next thing is that someone will mention the tobacco industry like the 60s is relevant !?


Page 1 of 11



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.