The Controversy is Real
I was disappointed that the segment on the role of dissent within the science of climate change opened up with three consecutive misleading claims of climate science orthodoxy.
1) The 2004 essay by Oreskes (indicating that, among exactly 928 papers, not one scientist denies man-made climate change) was later investigated in 2006 by Benny Peiser. He was not able to replicate her results. What’s even worse is that the essay was predicated upon a logical fallacy. Many climate change research papers do not address the causes of climate change per se. Therefore it is a non sequitur to count papers uncommitted to the issue of cause towards a consensus view about it.
2) Odenbaugh asserts that “the basic physics” of greenhouses gases “have been settled” as long as “all else is equal.” This last necessary caveat is an impossible assumption for a vast thermodynamic system as complicated as the Earth. There is in fact no consensus about how much climate forcing is brought about by additional atmospheric CO2 content, hence the astonishingly wide range of computer climate model predictions. There is precious little understanding about the relative strengths of negative-feedback mechanisms which stabilize global climate – factors typically absent in computer simulations.
3) The expected residence time of human-emitted atmospheric CO2 has been studied for several decades and most papers in the literature up to 1997 indicate a figure in the range of 5 years. The figures preferred by IPCC in the “long-term” range of 50-200 years represent extreme outliers, not a scientific consensus.
Climate orthodoxy dissenters have been conspicuously absent on BHTV. Why not invite people like Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, or Philip Stott to participate in a Science Saturday show?