Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« The Next Storm | Main | Heavy Lift And Lunar Energy »

How science works

Over on Technology Review there's a good article by Richard Muller on the discovery of the K-T impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, and the history of the science behind its discovery. He makes the point that science is inherently a process of asking ever more questions, each concrete answer generating a host of new questions.

The article is worth a read on its own merits, but as soon as I read it I immediately thought of this article on global warming, written by people who claim to be conducting scientific inquiry, but then end with this astonishingly dishonest statement:

The science is settled. The "skeptics" -- the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end -- have won.

I'll usually give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what they believe about global warming, since the science is complex and information is still coming in. The state of the field is rapidly evolving, so disagreement is not just reasonable, it's mandatory for the health of the science. However here we have three people claiming scientific credibility while making utterly inane statements which to a layman might seem like solid proof, but which don't pass even the most basic scientific smell test. Let's take a look at the quote above in detail:

The science is settled.

Bullshit. Simple, barefaced bullshit. The science is not settled until a model exists which is consistent with all the observations. The fact that there are difficulties with a certain subset of observations (atmospheric temperature data for example) does not mean that the null hypothesis (no warming) is true: in fact, if there is other reliable data that is inconsistent with the null hypothesis, the question is very much not settled. There is ocean surface temperature data, for example, which cannot easily be reconciled with the null hypothesis.

The "skeptics" -- the strange name ...

Apparently the authors are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "skeptic" - it is entirely appropriate to apply it to people who doubt, who question, who disbelieve orthodox views. To be a skeptic in science is a good thing - it's what the whole enterprise is about.

...applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't coming to an end ...

Ah yes, the signature of scientific integrity: distorting the view of your opponents beyond all recognition. The generally accepted view within the climate research community is that the world is warming and that there will be negative consequences. The difference between that and "the planet coming to an end" is the difference between a hangnail and death.

... have won.

Riiiiiiight. Questions about consistency of a subset of data completely overwhelm all of the data in favor of the hypothesis.

As I've said before, there's a lot to be done before we'll have a clear picture of what is up with global warming. There are entirely reasonable arguments that the warming is primarily natural rather than caused by humans, there's plenty of reasonable doubt about the magnitude of the warming, there's reasonable questions about wether the net long term effect might in fact be beneficial, and there are reasonable grounds to argue against any given policy regarding climate change. There is not even a slight amount of reasonableness to claims that the science of global warming is even close to settled, let alone settled in favor of the theory that there is no warming.

The authors of the TCS piece might have a defensible position if they were engaging is strictly political polemic, but they are not: they are brandishing scientific credentials on the one hand, and making blatantly false statements on the other. They are using scientific credentials to bolster claims which any credible scientist simply would not make. If you want to use scientific credentials to establish credibility, you have an obligation to meet a certain standard of integrity. Saying things which any scientist would know to be false, but which a member of the general public might believe, violates the most basic standards of personal and professional integrity. These guys are liars, and should be treated as such.

Posted by Andrew Case at August 16, 2004 08:22 AM

Comments

My Dad used to work with Rich Mueller -- actually, Mueller was a grad student when my dad was an engineer at Lawerence Berkeley Labs -- and my Dad likes to take a tiny hint of credit for Mueller's academic direction which lead to the dinosaurs. I forget that story, but my Dad also takes credit for certain events which lead to the Great Berkeley Panty Raid of 1956.

Posted by Andrew at August 16, 2004 03:14 PM

It just so happens that Aliens Cause Global Warming goes both ways.

Posted by Dan Schmelzer at August 16, 2004 04:09 PM

I coulndn't possibly fit all the things that were wrong with that TCS article in a comment, so please read my post.

Posted by Tim Lambert at August 17, 2004 05:21 AM

I've heard the same from a philosopher giving a lecture on UCTV talking about how the teachings of the bible are an early example of the scientific method used to explain the unexplainable. With the one answer leads to new questions example one could say that our quest to find out the true meaning of life and to better understand what God is that has ultimately lead to our creation of a secular scientific culture. Physicists have long worked to find one eloquent calculation to sum up the basic fabric of the universe and every computation lead to more questions. More and more physicists are plugging into their equations the nototion of parallel universes and multi dimensions and in some ways are putting God back into the machine.

Posted by Hefty at August 17, 2004 07:50 AM

On a different note, Jesus of Nazareth (and others before and since) made much of the coming 'end of the age' or 'end of the whorl/aeon'

We had 7,000 years of recorded history prior to the coming of the Promised One May 23rd, 1844, but Christian clergy to this day engage in the 'damnable heresy' of 'scoffing and denying our Lord Who redeems us' has returned.

And to do so, the clergy must squeeze 'then' away from 'at that time' (see Jesus' promises: Matt 24:14, Luke 21:24, Matt 24:15) to 'at that time or at some unspecified later time'...

Unfortunately, the end of the old world run by kings and ecclesiastics, lording it over the great mass of illiterate, downtrodden people, already ended. The transition has begun, the Singularity is underway and the ethical guidance for the New World is there, for all to investigate, in the writings and life of the Glory of God.

Posted by Eye Opener at August 17, 2004 08:02 AM

Eye Opener - you are skating awfully close to the line of blog spam, in fact you may have crossed it. I am not deleting your post because I am sympathetic to the Bahai faith. This has nothing to do with would-be evangelists, but rather to do with my personal experience interacting with Bahais who live their religion in word and deed - If any of them had crossed the line into hectoring or lecturing me before my opinions of the faith had solidified, I would be less sympathetic. I trust that my point is clear.

Posted by Andrew Case at August 17, 2004 09:03 AM

Back to the subject - nice post, Andrew. Unfortunately, scientists are people too, and emotion and personal biases always play a roll. From the local paper today:

By the end of the century, continued buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will sour wine grape production, distress dairy cows and bring summer temperatures to many inland cities that match Death Valley's today, according to scientists who have conducted the most detailed study yet of global climate change's effects in California.

I can't speak to the study, but from the quotes in the story, to these scientists substantial global warming appeared to be a given. There wasn't much room for arguments about different data, models, etc. It seemed to mirror the TCS article.

My feeling is that this subject has become so polarized, much like nuclear power, that it is difficult to know who is an honest researcher and who is blinded by ideology. Personally, I think it would be prudent to slow CO2 production, but I don't think anyone has a good handle on climate dynamics. The one thing I'm sure of is that we need more resources devoted to climate research.

Posted by VR at August 17, 2004 04:01 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?