'IN open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry, not least enabled by the information revolution provided through the Internet, the ethos of science as open, questioning, critical and anti-dogmatic should and can be defended also by the public at large. Efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of Science, seems largely to produce ridicule, opposition and inaction, and ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies.'
That’s the final paragraph in a new report by Emil A. Røyrvik; a social anthropologist and senior research scientists at SINTEF Technology and Society, Scandinavia’s largest independent research organisation.
The report about “the debate on man-made global warming” including an analysis of “the four myths of climate change”, “the hockey stick”, “climategate” and surveys and petitions of dissenting and contrarian positions.
Dr Røyrvik comes at the issue from an academic perspective and very clearly articulates the strength of the consensus position but also the logic of the contrarians – as he labels us. 
The section on philosophy of science reminded me what science is meant to be about…
‘Although seeking an open, (self)critical and impartial analysis, this report is, like any other human expression, based on some premises. This report is inspired by social studies of science and technology (STS) and it is necessary to briefly outline the epistemological premises that the analysis in this report is grounded in. That is, from the outset to highlight the report’s main underlying assumptions about the role and status of science in society. The report is based in the sociology of science in the form outlined especially by influential thinkers such as Robert K. Merton and Karl Polanyi. In general, Merton’s (1973) famous norms of science form the report’s epistemological gaze. Merton outlined what he termed the four sets of institutional imperatives that comprise the ethos of modern science. These four were communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. Already forming the catching “CUDOS” acronym, later philosophers of science have added “originality” to Merton’s list, making the acronym even more fitting.
‘In later commonly accepted versions based on Merton (e.g. Ziman 2000) the ethos of science entails Communalism in the sense that scientific results are publicly shared by the entire scientific community; Universalism, in the sense that claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal and
impersonal criteria, independent of terms such as race, class, gender, religion and nationality; Disinterestedness, understood in the sense that scientists should act for the common good of science, rather than for personal gain; Originality in research contributions; and Scepticism
(Organized Scepticism) through rigorous, systematic and critical scrutiny of all scientific claims by the scientific community. This last norm is achieved through peer-review and open publication.‘Merton and followers consider these principles to be both goals and methods of science and that they are binding to scientists. In a complementary vein Michael Polanyi outlined his views on “the republic of science” (1962), a classic defence of the autonomy of the scientific endeavour. While not discarding the importance of science’s contribution to society, he argued that this could and should only be achieved under scientific self-governance: “... we reject today the interference of political or religious authorities with the pursuit of science [and] we must do this in the name of the established scientific authority which safeguards the pursuit of science”. Following Polanyi, imposing societal goals to the “Society of Explorers” would inhibit its spontaneity and freedom, and as a consequence the quality and results (also societal) of scientific inquiry. This argument highlight a continuing conflict regarding the role of science in society, on the one hand its free and unhampered pursuit of truth and the revealing of the world, and on the other hand society’s arguably legitimate interest in securing some instrumental goals and usefulness from scientific labors. Obviously, this tensional science-policy interface is at the core of the controversy related to climate science and the IPCC.
Download the full report here:
Consensus and Controversy: The Debate on Man-Made Global Warming
SINTEF A24071. 2013_04_12
Social studies of science may shed some light on the politics of science, but it has little to say about the science itself.
The report gives examples of "dissenting" papers, "just to give a hint about the extent and serious ongoing questioning and discussion on AGW and climate change". I agree that the claimed dangers of AGW aren't based on solid science, and that our current understanding of climate change, causes and effects is very limited. But that doesn't mean that every paper against AGW should be taken seriously.
- Two Germans claiming to refute the "atmospheric greenhouse conjecture" because it violates the laws of physics and thermodynamics... Being a physicist only means you passed your exams, doesn't mean you understood what you read. Not sure who's worst, these two or physicists claiming the WTC towers were demolished with neutron bombs.
- "Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them": true, but doesn't disprove anything. CO2 rise doesn't just "happen", there must be a cause, be it temperature rise, burning fossil fuels... And A causing B doesn't mean B can't cause A. If you always start a fire with a match, that doesn't mean you can't light a match with a fire.
- “440 Myr ago atmospheric P Co2 was ~ 16 times higher than today. However, this enhanced level of atmospheric CO2 does not seem to have been accompanied by unusually warm temperatures in the tropics, and in fact may have been contemporaneous with high-latitude continental glaciation on Gondwanaland." I miss the words global temperature. Seems it was 6°C, and sea levels +200m, higher.
- "Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation": Could have merit, don't know. But I distrust someone whose religious beliefs seem to exclude the possibility of AGW, or at least AGW with adverse effects. McKitrick is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance's Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".
- "A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?" Valid point, I have some reservations about "history sciences" like paleoclimatology. And if these temperatures are accurate, then we still have to explain them. If our models can't explain the past, they can't predict the future.
- "Insignificant change in Antarctic snowmelt volume since 1979": Doesn't say anything about total amount of meltwater, subsurface melting is the major contributor to ice shelves thinning. The authors don't consider it to conflict with GW.
- "Does a Global Temperature Exist? Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. ":
They give the example of a glass of cold water and a cup of hot coffee, using four different definitions for the average temperature, showing that one may show heating while another shows cooling. "physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them"? Indeed, since the obvious option wasn't there: the weighted average i.e. the temperature you get when you mix the water with the coffee (ignoring temperature dependence of specific heat and other details). They then go on to argue that "warming" or "cooling" have no meaning when talking about climate, you can't compare different periods in earth history and say that one was warmer or colder than the other, you can only compare for example Venus with Earth, because the temperature ranges don't overlap... Seems like just an attempt to get rid of the term "global warming". With a few of the more basic formulas thrown in. Can't have thermodynamics without partial differential equations...
Once politics and public opinion gets involved, science suffers. The Al Gore circus was bad, but compared to some of those papers...
Good point Neville, CO2 had no part to play in the Younger Dryas.
What dragged us out of the depths? Perhaps it was Gaia, but I prefer a rational, scientific explanation.
No hockey stick in Chile indicates we maybe witnessing a see-saw effect.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_6.html
Jennifer,
I apologize. I engaged in silly and rude behavior here on yhour thread.
It will not happen again.
Respectfully,
'hunter'
Hi Neville,
The bit at the end of the NZ review about the vegan and the B 12 pills. Have they ever studied how they make them ?
Sounds even worse for the "planet " than cow farts. Given how many we would need.
EG thanks for that study. Amazing if it could be the sun and I note that paper is dated 2000.
But why did the Younger dryas end so abruptly, a warming of 10c in just 10 years? Amazing to think of the forcing that could achieve that rate of warming.
We're panicing because the planet has warmed 0.7c in the last 100+ years and after the end of a minor ice age. Hardly unprecedented.
There appears to be a long lag with CO2 chasing temps.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif