Media can’t hide bias in shutting down climate change debate

Every time there is a new government or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report the mainstream media acts like a shill and reports on it uncritically. That is especially true at the time of the annual Conference of the Parties, which is currently taking place in Bonn Germany. 

On Nov. 3, the U.S. government released the latest National Climate Assessment and true to form reported that human activities are the dominant cause of climate change. In the coverage of this report, those who don’t buy into the climate orthodoxy are given short shrift, if they are mentioned at all. 

{mosads}As an example, The Richmond Times Dispatch editorialized that “there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.” It went on to state that the “alternative theories have not withstood scrutiny,” specifically mentioning cosmic rays and solar activities.

But that criticism is not correct.

When the international panel issued its first assessment report in the 1990s, it dismissed the role of solar influence. Since then, it has gradually accepted some solar influence and no one has satisfactorily challenged the work of Henrik Swensmark who has demonstrated the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formation which influences global temperatures. 

The Times Dispatch also asserts that skeptics “pick quarrels at the margin,” referencing a recent critique in The Wall Street Journal that is hardly at the margin. It goes to the heart of how data are treated in climate analyses. The argument points out that the claim of accelerating sea level rise is inconsistent with the referenced document in that recent rates are “statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20^th century.”

That is not quarreling at the margin. Nor does it prove periods of extreme heat and hurricane intensity are not outside of the historical record. When underlying data are distorted, there is every reason to challenge the overall report.

The climate establishment is heavily invested in CO2 being the primary driver of climate change and therefore devotes very little time and effort seriously exploring alternative explanations, which could be a combination of factors.

The international panel clearly acknowledges that the state of knowledge about clouds, aerosols, solar, land use and oceans is not high. It also is generally acknowledged that our understanding of natural variability and climate sensitivity is still evolving. These uncertainties surely should weaken the certitude with which advocates claim that human activities are the dominant cause of climate change.

Instead of attacking skeptics, the media should ask for a compelling explanation of why advocates assert narratives that are not consistent with objective observational data and why the role of identified uncertainties is discounted. They don’t ask why advocates dismiss global satellite temperature measurements that do not show any significant warming in almost two decades and why they accept model results that consistently overstate the extent of actual warming. 

The failure to accept that these uncertainties seriously weaken the certitude of the climate establishment could strongly suggest a case of confirmation bias. Barbara Tuchman in her book “March of Folly” made the point that “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it.” While her book ends with the war in Vietnam, her observation is relevant to the climate change debate. 

Climate advocates are likely to assert that confirmation bias is less likely in science due to the rigor of the scientific process. However, Raymond Nickerson’s 1998 analysis of confirmation bias cites examples of science philosopher Karl Popper referring to an “incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question …There was, in Popper’s view, no conceivable evidence that could be brought to bear … that would be viewed by an adherent as grounds for judging it to be false”.

The reaction to criticisms of the National Climate Assessment report and criticisms of climate orthodoxy appear to be examples of confirmation bias as described by Nickerson and Tuchman. The Wall Street Journal’s critique once again called for a Red/Blue team “adversarial review to stress test the entire report.” Not only would that confirm or deny the validity of the report’s structure, analysis and conclusions but it would shed light on the relevance of the uncertainties that undermine the claim of settled science.

William O’Keefe is the founder and president of Solutions Consulting. He formerly served as CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that conducted technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy before closing in 2015.