It would appear from your blog that you believe science and skepticism about global warming are incompatible. As a conservative who teaches the scientific method applied to social science I would remind you that science is inherently skeptical. The concept of "settled science" is a contradiction in terms. I encourage you to google Girma Orssengo's "Predictions of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections." I would love to hear your response to his paper. Is he not a scientist?Science and skepticism go together well, but there are limits. Science is all about the search for universal laws, and applying those laws where appropriate. When current research collides with well-understood and well-known universal laws it's usually the current research that perishes first.
Regarding my particular blog post, I don't know what my conservative friend's current opinion regarding Global Warming happens to be (it's been years since I've spoken to him), but I know, whatever that opinion is, it will be a nuanced and well-educated opinion, largely-independent of any conservative political predilections he has, because he has the advantage of several decades of experience in the field. Experience is a plus!
As you requested, I took a look at Girma Orssengo's "Predictions of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections." I was horrified! Without justification, the author uses a cosine fit (which necessarily oscillates) to model global temperatures (which need not oscillate in the same way). The paper also suffers from poor editing. It is a terrible work to rely upon! (As a side note, I note that the author comes from India. Based on my experience in graduate school, there seems to be something immature about Indian scientific academic culture that makes them prone to taking rash stands - not everyone, of course, but some - enough to be worrisome.)
But skepticism works both ways too. I remember reading a paper ascribing recent temperature increases in Bullhead City, AZ, to Global Warming, plus the Urban Heat Island Effect. The paper did not mention the move in temperature-measurement location from a lawn to a barren field in 1982, which would necessarily change the measured temperatures, rendered the analysis moot. The only reason I knew of the shift was that it made headlines in AZ that year (where I happened to be living) because the abrupt jump in temperatures made Bullhead City the new, hottest city in AZ - from 3rd place, to 1st! The author may not have known about the shift in location, but they got a published work anyway! Foolish scientist! Science is not perfect! There is plenty of skepticism for everyone!
In my experience, there are many scientists in slightly-related fields to climatology who love kibitzing in the field for fun and ideological interests. I had a boss who specialized in Cloud Microphysics who signed a widely-publicized letter expressing skepticism regarding Global Warming. He felt his decades of experience in Meteorology and a number of related physical sciences gave him sufficient license to comment on the work of Climatologists. It did not. My boss was a Technological Triumphalist already inclined to disdain Global Warming concerns, and he was happy to lend his name to the cause. That's why I believe it’s important to turn skepticism upon Global Warming Skeptics. I have yet to meet a real Climatologist, or someone working in a directly-related field, who was also a Global Warming Skeptic. They may not exist. And for good reason! Too much contact with the temperature records may be fatal to Global Warming Skeptic faith!
I trust Climate Science most to people who work directly in the field, or in fields that are directly applicable. I do not trust Meteorologists (my training is Atmospheric Sciences, and I work as an air pollution dispersion modeler and I know too many opinionated, half-assed Meteorologists with axes to grind). I do not trust Consultants, or Think Tank People, or TV people, or UN people, for that matter. I trust most people who live and breathe weather records, and people who understand climate, and who have few ideological sacred cows to preserve. As a practical matter, I "believe science and skepticism about global warming are incompatible" because everywhere they look, climate people see signs of rising temperatures, which could well be linked to rising levels of CO2 (315 ppm when I was born; 385 ppm now) and other greenhouse gases. People with different explanations are free to offer their thoughts, but they shouldn't whine when they experience the lash of skepticism too.
No comments:
Post a Comment