Universities severely compromise science when they insist ‘consensus’ is unquestionable, writes consultant psychologist Graham Scott.
By now we should all be familiar with the flaws in the so-called ‘consensus’ argument, in which activists allege 97 per cent of actively publishing climate scientists agree humans are causing climate change. In this article I draw on personal experience to reveal the lengths to which activist academics will go to protect the consensus from critical appraisal. Inevitably, those who do not accept the consensus unreservedly are labelled ‘climate deniers’ or ‘climate sceptics’. These labels are in direct contrast to the true believers, and apparently there is no middle ground. You are not even allowed to have questions; only blind acceptance of, and adherence to, the ‘consensus’.
My attempt to ask questions began in 2023 at the Queensland University of Technology. While this may be only one data point, I think we have enough to declare a trend! The university: a sanctuary of science, an institution that honours learning, from which students emerge equipped to be critical thinkers who value scientific rigour. This is the ideal. Regrettably, my experience was of a place where ideology pushes science aside and students are so beset by confirmation bias they emerge slaves to ideology while delusionally believing they are scientists.
At the heart of this delusion are two related phenomena: confirmation bias and noble cause corruption. Confirmation bias often manifests unconsciously, being born of strongly held beliefs. The scientist can be totally unaware he or she is displaying confirmation bias. It can also manifest consciously and quite deliberately through noble cause corruption. The scientist, wanting to arrive at a particular conclusion, consciously avoids or removes any conflicting data, and/or manipulates data or the research process. So, confirmation bias contributes to noble cause corruption which, in turn, supports and spreads the confirmation bias.
In my opinion, there are enough informed sceptics around the subject of climate change and its causes to warrant further investigation. Consequently, I have gone to considerable lengths to try and acquaint myself with both sides of the argument. I have read widely, attended talks, contacted various experts (lecturers, scientists, technical authors etc), and on many occasions have been shut down if I posed a ‘denier’s’ argument. So, last year, I enrolled at QUT to undertake a degree in Environmental Science. My first unit was ‘Introduction to Climate Change’.
I wanted to discover the real science behind the claims of a 97 per cent consensus. I was to be sadly disappointed. An early lecture was delivered by a guest lecturer, Mark Delaney, who also co-authored a required reading text: Low Carbon and Loving it. In the lecture, Mark proudly told how he had participated in protest ‘sit ins’ but offered no real science after saying: “Now for the science”.
I then read the text, which was disconcerting in that—as required reading in a unit targeting science and engineering students—it presented nothing more than ideology while espousing a genuine alignment to science. Early in the book there is a warning about misinformation, and ‘myth busting’ boxes claim to debunk false or misleading information. One such example states that any suggestion polar bears are thriving is a myth. It is argued that, while the raw numbers of polar bears may be better than during hunting times, they appear to be in decline again because of climate change rather than hunting.
The authors reference an article by Polar Bears International, which offers no conclusive science to support the contention that polar bear populations are in decline or anthropogenic-influenced climate change is contributing to any decline. The text then meanders from polar bears to the other usual suspects:
Extreme weather events will increase in frequency and severity; coral reefs will be severely damaged, affecting much marine life; sea levels will rise by metres, displacing hundreds of millions of people;
there will be catastrophic loss of biodiversity; and global food production will be under significant stress.
The authors then devote a whole chapter to the Great Barrier Reef, painting a picture of certain demise. While the ‘text’ does offer opinions by former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Charlie Veron, it offers no alternate or opposing science. In an email exchange with the author, I asked if he had read any of Dr Peter Ridd’s work regarding the science of the Great Barrier Reef. He replied that he had not, which was a concern given that the co-author, Mark’s 21-year-old son, Tom, states “While Mark and I are not experts on climate change ourselves, this book draws from and refers to expert sources”.
Differing scientific views ought to have been considered.
But the expert sources referred to are only those who support the authors’ ideology; no other science is considered. Sources referred to include articles from The Guardian, an ABC interview with David Attenborough and, surprisingly, a list of “expert references” including Margret Thatcher and Pope Francis. All this constitutes the basis of the authors’ ‘scientific’ conclusion: “As historian of Science Naomi Oreskes says: ‘The basic reality of anthropogenic (human caused) global climate change is no longer a subject of scientific debate’.” It also justifies this question: “Given this, who would you rather believe—the climate sceptics or the climate scientists?”
The implication of this dichotomy is that only those who agree with the prevailing ideology can be classified as climate scientists. Any who question that ideology are ipso facto not scientists. This fosters the belief in students (future scientists) that only those who subscribe to the views of the authors are true scientists, which contributes to the development of confirmation bias.
The authors are quite explicit:
In areas where there is strong scientific consensus among the experts, giving airtime to denialist views leads the public to a false understanding that there is genuine scientific debate.
After reading the text I concluded the unit was a mixture of some basic science swamped by ideology. As a past lecturer, I was amazed the book was even recommended reading, let alone on the required reading list. After doing my own research I found many contrary opinions, from some very eminent sources. I do not pretend to offer my own input into the debate, but rather aim to show there exists a significant number of differing scientific views that ought to have been considered in the text and the unit of which it was a part.
This includes the views of such people as: Dr Judith Curry, climatologist, former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Dr Peter Ridd, physicist, past Professor at James Cook University, Member of the Australian Institute of Marine Science; the IPA’s own Dr Jennifer Marohasy, passionate scientist and editor of Climate Change: The Facts; Dr Kesten Green, Scientific Forecaster, Lecturer at the University of South Australia; and other eminent scientists such as physicist John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Laureate.
A strong scientific case was made in the journal article ‘Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit’ (INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, 2008) by J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green,and Willie Soon, supporting former US senator James Inhofe’s voiced disappointment with the decision to list polar bears as ‘threatened’, which he argued was a case of reality verses unproven computer models, the methodology of which had been challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts. These scientists examined the forecasts of substantial long-term declines in polar bear populations, relying on the government reports. On assessing these reports based on evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles, they concluded the forecasts were unscientific and found none of the reports referred to sources of scientific forecasting methodology.
I read the work of others, including Roger Pielke Jr. who, in his publication The Rightful Place of Science, challenged the ‘facts’ regarding the severity and consequence of ‘extreme weather events’ attributed to climate change. Pielke also said that, given the Obama administration can state scientific conclusions which are clearly not supported by science, without fear of challenge by the scientific community or the media, the climate science community appears to have succumbed to noble cause corruption.
Another article, ‘Reef islands have continually adjusted to environmental change over the past two millennia’ (Kench et al, Nature Communications, 2023), refutes the absolutes and alarmism around sea level rise, and finds the opposite of the ‘settled science’ may be true.
Dr Peter Ridd’s Reef Heresy (Connor Court, 2020) shows how media distort science, how universities distort research, and how researchers “manipulate” data. Ridd also challenges the validity of several “scientific” published papers.
Similarly, in Climate Uncertainty and Risk (Anthem Press, 2023), Judith Curry provides more than 102 references, mostly science based, regarding “the consensus”, and more than 59 on modelling, positing a strong scientific argument that counters the apocalyptic predictions raised in Low Carbon and Loving It. As Curry has written: “Assessing the adequacy of climate models for the purpose of predicting future climate is particularly difficult and arguably impossible.” And Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens, in ‘The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change’ (PNAS, 2019), write: “The current generation of [climate] models is not fit for purpose.”
So, at the core of the ‘closed debate’ is the smouldering ember of climate modelling. References to the value and integrity of models would fill volumes. But this is, or should be, the stuff of real scientific debate; not a closed consensus that proscribes any further scientific exploration and induces confirmation bias.
After concluding that Low Carbon and Loving It was totally inappropriate for its lack of scientific rigour, I advised the unit coordinator that a unit designed for science students must present the science. If it presents a one-sided ideology, it must at least acknowledge there are other scientific challengers. I further suggested that:
There is no place in a public university for a recommended text that offers a biased view in the name of science and then goes to great lengths to denigrate anyone who opposes this view. This is the antithesis of science.
In his response, the unit coordinator advised that the book only formed a short portion of the unit and that the purpose of its inclusion was to frame climate change as a “human challenge”. He also suggested that the university’s position aligned with the “overwhelming scientific consensus”.
I followed this up by asking several questions; chiefly, if the unit coordinator supported the notion that anyone, including reputable scientists, who did not agree with the rhetoric in the text are deniers and sceptics, did the unit not promote confirmation bias in students? The response was hardly enlightening: “After considering the concerns in your emails, the conclusion is that the previous response stands.”
One-sidedness creates confirmation bias in our future scientists.
I shared my concerns with the Vice Chancellor and other members of the executive, asking similar questions to those I had put to the unit coordinator. Professor Robina Xavier the Deputy Vice Chancellor and Vice President (Academic) responded but did not answer my questions. She advised that the view represented in the unit aligns with the consensus of scientific evidence, adding:
There is no suggestion in the unit’s construction that the consensus should not be subject to scrutiny and robust discussion as scientific work is a contest of hypotheses and supporting evidence and this scrutiny of alternative views should be open to the same standards of peer review and assessment.
Through the teaching of science and its outreach, the University strongly supports efforts to assist our students to recognise and avoid confirmation bias. It is our role to ensure our students can accurately interpret scientific results in accordance with the weight of the supporting evidence. Students are encouraged through unit activities to test ideas and engage in robust discussion with their academic leads and each other.
Given that the Deputy Vice Chancellor missed my point regarding confirmation bias (that it exists at the university-wide level) I lodged a formal grievance with the Student Ombudsman’s office since I had decided to discontinue the unit. The Deputy Student Ombudsman responded initially that: “In short, the recommendation of this office is that QUT staff have thoroughly and appropriately responded to the detail of your complaint.”
I questioned this conclusion. The answer was as bewildering as it was inappropriate: “Students should exercise their choice in a learning institution they feel best suits them and their beliefs (my emphasis)”.
I advised the Deputy Student Ombudsman that it was inappropriate; he responded that his statement had been misinterpreted. Furthermore, he would not advise how he arrived at his response; that it was thoroughly and appropriately answered, and then added that the Ombudsman is not bound to provide reasoning to students regarding ‘recommendations’.
I then escalated the grievance, through the Student Ombudsman. In response, I was advised that they had investigated with the acting head of school, and:
No student should be surprised that the Minor was designed to reflect the overwhelming (>95%) scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic.
To your complaint that an industry guest lecturer condoned and advocated civil disobedience as an option to voice concern about political action regarding climate change, they note that as a University for the Real World, QUT does not shy away from Real World issues, including the fact that many Australian States have laws about suppression of climate protest that are draconian by Western standards. It is appropriate for our
students to be exposed to these issues, as it is their generation who will have to take the most action in regard to climate.
On the one hand we have the Deputy Vice Chancellor offering platitudes about confirmation bias while demonstrating a complete lack of awareness—or a ‘hands over the eyes view’—that the university is a breeding ground for confirmation bias. On the other, there is the acting head of school telling the student who raises a genuine concern to, basically, cop it sweet. And, all the while, subordinating science to the university’s real calling: to be a ‘university for the real world’.
It is not the role of a university, even a university of the real world, to take an ideological or political stance, particularly when this jettisons scientific rigour. But this is precisely what QUT is doing, and doing so with such misplaced defiance.
Overseeing this university is a Vice Chancellor and President who was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for “distinguished service to science and higher education as an academic and administrator, through significant contributions to the national research landscape, and to performance standards”.
The aim of this paper was never to argue for or against a significant anthropogenic role in climate change. Rather, it was to call out the fact that a university, Queensland University of Technology, teaches a unit for science and engineering students in which a required text promotes ideology over science and explicitly dismisses anyone questioning that ideology as a ‘denier’ or ‘sceptic’. By implication, any scientist questioning the ideology is not a real scientist, Nobel Prizes notwithstanding.
My assertion is that this blatant one-sidedness creates or contributes to confirmation bias in our future scientists. When I challenged this, the university’s response was the brick wall of ‘the consensus’.
While the media or politicians might refer to scientists as deniers or sceptics, which is a predictable putdown, a university must never use these terms in an attempt to cancel scientists who are pursuing genuine scientific enquiry.
Judith Curry puts it best:
Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process can harm scientific progress because of the questions that do not get asked and the investigations that are not undertaken.
It is incumbent on universities to produce scientists who will, while acknowledging a consensus, not be bound by it. Witness Wegener in the face of a consensus around plate tectonics, or Warren and Marshall and the consensus regarding the true cause of peptic ulcers. Blind adherence to the consensus compromises science and, in the process, endangers humanity.
Graham Scott has practised as a consultant organisational psychologist for more than 25 years, advising government and private organisations. He has also worked as a sessional lecturer. He has an Applied Science degree and a Masters in Organisational Psychology.
This article from the Summer 2024 edition of the IPA Review is written by consultant psychologist Graham Scott.
