Climate cover-up: A trumpeted consensus to the contrary is a global hoax

Climate cover-up: A trumpeted consensus to the contrary is a global hoax

The sun can’t be ruled out as the principal driver of climate change

Financial Post

Benny Peiser

May 17, 2005

Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world’s leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth’s climate. They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which, according to their calculations, will result in “some small global cooling over the next couple of years.”

I remain decidedly skeptical of such long-term climate predictions. Nevertheless, it is quite remarkable that the global mean temperature, as recorded by NASA’s global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, has actually dropped slightly during the last couple of years—notwithstanding increased levels of CO2 emissions. Two more years of cooling and we may even see the reappearance of a new Ice Age scare.

Whatever one may think of these odd developments, the idea that the sun is the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in recent years. Last month, Jan Veizer, one of Canada’s top Earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that “empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers.”

What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world’s leading scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers don’t exist in the peer-reviewed literature?

According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science in December, 2004, there is unanimous “scientific consensus” on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts, I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the “consensus,” while the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic global warming. Oreskes even claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned once in any of the papers since 1993 and concludes: “This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.”

What happened to the countless research papers that show global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a “scientific consensus on climate change.” The truth is, there is no such thing.

In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the “consensus” is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists formally rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global warming, emphasizing: “The Earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in Earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.”

In the meantime, activists, campaigners and a number of scientific organizations routinely cited Oreskes’ essay as final confirmation that the science of climate change is settled once and for all. In a worrying sign of attempted press containment, Britain’s Royal Society has even employed her study to call upon the British media to curtail reporting about the scientific controversy altogether.

Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that “a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.” Remarkably, a research paper about their survey and some of its key results were submitted to Science in August, 2004. Yet shortly after the paper was rejected, the journal published Oreskes’ study, which claimed a universal consensus among climate researchers.

The decision to publish Oreskes’ claim of general agreement (just days before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly misled the public and the world’s media. In my view, such unethical behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse than the editors’ refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals regarding Oreskes’ flawed study.

The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it’s all over for science.

Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University.