Investigating Consensus

 As the west, northwest, and Canada’s British Columbia temperatures rise to set new records, as the ice caps melt and the oceans rise, the public’s opinion about climate change is also rising to match the long-held science consensus.

Given the amount of money paid by fossil fuel companies to commercial public opinion manipulators, (Liars for Hire)*, it is understandable why we have been duped. I question why I have stuck with the scientists as some of the deceptive denier arguments, at first glance, are convincing.

One reason may be because I saw the retreat of the Alaskan Glaciers. Another may be because my Air Force Academy and K-12 education was rich with science. Additionally, my career brought me in contact with experts in various fields including aviation, meteorology, biology, and medicine. Within reason I am skeptical and adopt ideas cautiously. But, when nearly all experts in a field of science agree, I am compelled to take a hard close look to ferret out the facts.

Without a degree in Earth Science, or more specifically Climate Science, I was aware I needed to be thorough. Here is my journey to create an internal consensus. 

Early in my investigation I heard the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) was the preeminent international organization in climate science. Perhaps this came to me when the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. The Nobel Prize Committee called special attention to the IPCC efforts to obtain and disseminate greater knowledge concerning man-made climate changes and the steps needed to counteract those changes. In science, the Nobel Prize is the medal of honor. The IPCC is a joint effort by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, (WMO). This was impressive but, I thought, “who represents the US in the WMO?”

It is the, the American Meteorological Society, (AMS) our largest atmospheric science organization. The AMS has strong position papers on global warming and supports the IPCC.

Being curious and wondering if there was more consensus among reputable science organizations, I wondered what science organization was the best in the US? It was humbling to discover, after all my science classes, discovering at age 62, the top of the science pyramid is occupied by the National Academy of Science, (NAS).  The NAS has strongly worded position papers on climate change which agree with the other 80 national academies around the world all supporting the IPCC. Additionally, the NAS has many studies on various aspects of climate change, its causes, dangers, and solutions.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS) is the world’s largest general science organization. They have been ringing the climate alarm for decades.

My search included finding the position papers written by the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Medical Association, and the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Finally, convinced of international climate science consensus, I went on to study the interesting and not overly complicated science of climate. Later, being a history buff, I found the biographies of the leading scientists and engineers very interesting. I also traveled to listen to and meet current experts.

While the consensus among reputable science organizations is 100%, and among currently practicing climate scientists it is over 97%; most Americans do not know this.

In subsequent columns I will circle back to psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology to reveal the deep-seated reasons we have not rallied behind our scientists. For now, lets go one step further to understand how scientists, “Prove their worth”. By examining one aspect of the process of science discovery we can begin to understand where public awareness has been subverted.

To start with, a scientist must put in at least 4 years of productive college study to get work. Next, the prospective scientist will do field work and research in one of the many disciplines. The scientist’s work, and that of his team, is compiled and then submitted to science journals with hopes of publication. The science journal editors examine the work to determine which experts should be chosen to evaluate the work. If this gauntlet is run successfully the work is published.

The next gauntlet to run is the big one. After printing, the scientist’s work is presented to the entire science community for critical review. There are plenty of scientists who will not only review the work but will attempt to replicate it because all science must be replicable to be accepted. This whole process is called PEER-REVIEW. If someone says their work is peer-reviewed but cannot tell you which journal it was published, be skeptical.

There are science magazine journalists who comb through the primary journals with the intention of writing interesting, legitimate, factual based articles. The science magazine journalists render down the “scientific language” into language we can understand often referred to as, “plain language”*. The science magazine journalists’ goal is to be interesting, understandable, and true to the science. Magazines devoted to this are Scientific American, Science, Science News, Discovery, and National Geographic.

Unfortunately, few of us receive science information from magazines devoted to our understanding. Worse yet, up until about two years ago, mainstream media magazines and news organizations were terrible sources of climate science information. You may remember the deceptive phrase “fair and balanced”. It meant if you had a scientist who represented 97 to 100% of the science community you needed to “balance” things out with an opposing opinion even if the opposing person had produced no work recognized accepted by the science community. Sometimes this interviewee required for “balance” worked in a discipline unrelated to climate. I remember one show, desperate for balance, asked a ski hill owner to express his disbelief in a warming world. This is one reason, for 30 years, the American public has believed there was an internal debate within the science community when the truth has always been at least 90% of the practicing climate scientists were, internally, in fierce consensus.

We were sitting ducks for misinformation artists creating the myth of disagreement. The fossil fuel hired liars, deniers who had not run the gauntlet of peer review, were given more time and ink than the practicing scientist.

This seems to be changing. Except for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, most media science information is trending towards peer-reviewed truth and true balance.  Of course, if you want to be better informed, subscribe to one or two of the reputable science magazines mentioned. They cover a myriad of interesting subjects we and our kids should not ignore.

*“Liars for Hire” is the moniker given to paid climate deniers by Author, Columnist, and distinguished professor of English, Eric Alterman

*Plain language and the US government:         https://www.plainlanguage.gov