Monthly Archives: March 2012

Every little comment is precious

As I often sit at my keyboard at 1:00 am, torturing words into yet another blog or comment on yet another climate change article, when I should be working, I sometimes wonder just how insignificant one lonely voice probably is, in this great big climate argument in this even bigger world of the internet. Does anyone even read it?

Well, as I was reading the latest interview with Judith Curry, one quote from a comment by the journalist struck a cord with me, in fact it’s what I’ve been saying…in fact it’s exactly what I did say.

In SciAmerican article, October 2010,  “Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues”, my comment:

Comment 34. MichaelC58 02:38 AM 10/24/10

“A hint of a rethink of blind faith in CAGW by the SciAmerican, even through the gritted teeth of Mr Lemonick, is most welcome.

There is another point Dr Curry makes which is dear to my heart:  peer reviewed vs regulated science.

Industries affecting public safety, such as medicine and aviation are highly regulated. Peer review is fine for theoretical research, but if you want to inflict it on the public, you must use regulated science. This means complying with quality and performance standards in research, use independent test labs, government auditors and investigators such as the FDA and their gun-carrying enforcement officers. We, in the medical industry, must maintain all design, safety and all adjustments of data in auditable, incorruptible non-repudiatable forms, or we are not believed and are shut down. The public expect this – because lives are at risk.

Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.

Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.To a medical researcher like myself, it’s utter surreal madness.

And then you hear story after story of arbitrary adjustments, homogenization, lost data, breach of IPCC’s own protocol, conflicts of interests and colossal profiteering and even criminal activity (EU carbon trading) in the subsidized green industry. Has it not occurred to anyone that a trillion dollar industry may need independent scrutiny of its claims?

Please ask yourself – would you buy a headache tablet made by the IPCC process? i.e. by peer review between a bunch of pharmaceutical researchers, without FDA oversight?

Let me help you – NO, you would not. So why are we buying climate alarmism without the complete transparency and external audit of the assumptions, the data, the statistics and conclusions? After all, lives are at risk.”

It is gratifying to see this comment quoted back to Judith Curry 2 years later in her interview in OilPrice.com , titled: “The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness – An Interview with Judith Curry”,  an article requoted on the internet including inInternational Business Times on 7 March 2012:

OilPrice.com: I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that i thought i’d get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments:

Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.

Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.

Judith Curry: I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards.

So if a comment or a blog by one sceptic like you and me can sometimes resonate and spread a small idea, together many such comments can shift mass opinion and thus make a difference.