Guest post by Andi Cockroft
One cannot help but notice the events of the past few weeks (nay months if you include Climategate II), and the ad hominem attacks on both sides.
Fred Singer in his recent post here would have us place Climate Science advocates into three groups; deniers, sceptics and warmistas – but why the need for demarcation?
Way back in 1879, it may not have been evident to Pauline and Hermann that their new-born son would progress through his teenage years as a school drop-out – using a forged Doctor’s note to do so. Although later in life at the age of 16 he did enroll in a Polytechnic – but again failed in just about every subject.
At 17, he and his sweetheart enrolled again at the Polytechnic, stimulating the interest he held about electromagnetism
Married, divorced, married again, he couldn’t even get a job teaching, so ended up working as a clerk in the local Patent Office reviewing patent applications pertaining to electromagnetism. But boredom led to many thoughtful reflections on life, the universe and everything.
In 1905, by thesis, he obtained a Doctorate, and that same year published not one, but 4 ground-breaking papers.
His name of course is Albert Einstein – the amateur who proclaimed to the world the nature of matter, energy and relativity.
OK, so what has this little biography got to do with Climate Science – well I say it should teach us 2 things:
Firstly, an amateur working as a clerk is just as able to present the truth as the most gifted professional. The truth is the truth no matter who presents it. The unwillingness of many main-stream “Climate Scientists” to engage with alternate viewpoints sets them apart from “Science”. To many the science is not settled, and needs a full open and honest public debate.
Of course building on Einstein’s work, a humble Belgian priest Le Maitre (another gifted amateur) proposed a theory now well established regarding an expanding universe. I well remember a revered astronomer from my old school in Yorkshire, England – a certain Fred Hoyle who unwittingly creating a phrase bandied about to this day – in an attempt he states never meant to mock relativity and/or expansionism – he jokingly referred to a “big bang”. That particular phrase seems to have stuck with us somehow.
More recently, over on the Swiss border, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produced some unexpected results when Neutrinos were observed to be apparently travelling faster than light – something Special Relativity states is impossible.
Although I saw some rejection of this notion in various Fora, I saw no ad hominem attacks – simply a startled disbelief and a raging curiosity – could we be wrong after all these years? Do we have to rewrite the physics?
As we now know, a computer cabling glitch has been blamed for the neutrinos apparent haste – but hey – for a moment there it looked real cool – most physicists I know were both incredulous and incredibly excited at one and the same time.
So, my second point – true scientists – in this case physicists – are willing to be sceptical. They are willing – nay eager – to look at new possibilities and alternate explanations.
Compare that to the theatre that is “Climate Science”
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm
=================
Dam Robert! I have read shorter books. Between the author of this post and your comments it pretty much sums up my view on this whole stupid mess. It was that little phrase that brought me into this insanity “settled science”. Those two little words uttered by scientist flew in the face of everything I was ever taught. Just a guess but I think those words were by far the best campaign the warmist could have used to bring the wrath of the skeptical mind.
It really seems that it has come to teaching the truth one person at a time.
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm
=========
Someone had to say it.
Now it needs to “go viral”.
Wow.
As the Master said himself, one of physics’s problems is the “meta-problem” of analysis: Most theorists are exquisitely tuned to mathematics, and so translate their abstract hypotheses to equivalent Cartesian curves amenable to additional manipulation.
But this not only inverts what Einstein termed “visualization” of a problem, but renders verbal expression problematic. Creative intelligence is necessarily not abstract but concrete, requiring a sense of “dynamic proportion” not formulated in abstruse equations but “queried as a hypothetical”. For example, “If I were riding a light-beam and looked back, what would I see?”
In technical terms, the answer is FitzGerald’s Contraction, time-interval dilation, and so forth; but geometric insight is holistic, qualitative: Special Relativity, the profoundly counter-intuitive redefinition of “energy” as a function of electromagnetic radiation by means of nature’s universal constant c.
From Edward Lorenz’s Chaos Theory to Benoit Mandelbrot’s fractal-geometric constructs self-similar on every scale, geometric visualization precedes mathematical formulation as it did with General Relativity, when Einstein observed a collapsing scaffold across the street in Berne and asked himself, “Does a falling body feel its own weight?” The answer has to do with Riemannian hyper-geometry, with geodesics in 4-dimensional space-time, but Galileo in pre-Cartesian times would understand.
Next question: If Pasts are fixed, immutable, and Futures are indeterminate, unknowable, what existential zero-point may lie between? Stay tuned.
The story of einstein has precious little to do with the distinctions that Singer drew.
His distinctions were descriptive. Observations of three groups of thought.
Further, drawing lessons from a single case isn’t what I would call a reliable method.
And, as I understand it, the Italian fellows who did the original neutrinos faster than light experiments, immediately threw open their findings and data and invited their colleagues to find where they may have gone wrong. That’s the real scientific approach.
The contrast with climate science couldn’t be more stark.
RGB: Very nice essay – thank-you very much! I hope many CAGW convinced readers see the overall tenuous foundation on which such conclusions rest. Much rancor, debate, and animosity is to be expected with much skeptical contention. It is how science works out the details, after all.
What forced myself into engagement, were the many calls for action, based on mostly conjecture and first reports. This is how society makes it’s biggest blunders. Going off at “half cock” is descriptive. The science must be nailed solid and models validated before ANY actions, beyond prudent disaster preparedness, can be contemplated. We just don’t know which way to jump, or whether any jumping is even required. Action without reason is panic. Panic destroys opportunity for rightful action.
To my horror, there are many, that for ideological reasons, want and desire… exactly that. GK
Robert Brown Thanks for a great post. O T ? I would be very interested to hear your opinions on the long series of papers posted by Myron Evans on the UFT papers link at
http://www.aias.us/
my e mail is [SNIP: Norman, it is not a good idea to publicize your e-mail address. I will forward your email address to Dr. Brown. If anyone else wishes to contact you, they can ask a moderator to forward their e-mail and you can decide if you wish to contact them. -REP] if by chance you do find the time to look at them..
Anyone else who feels competent to comment on Evans work feel free to email me also.
Reminiscent of a supposed conversation at the air ministry WW2.
“I just turned away some bod called Frank Whittle who has made a gas turbine engine in his garden shed. It only had 1000 pounds of thrust”.
Reply, “The super-charged, Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the Spitfire has 800 pounds of thrust”.
Beautifully written article. Eisenstein failed at school, failed in his personal life and he was even unable to get a teaching job. He could only find work as a menial Swiss patent office clerk. Not something to build your career as a theoretical physicist.
Eisenstein was however a genius of the first order, the kind that graces humanity every 300 years or so. Without government grants, professorial tenure or professional reputation, he divined Nature from a perspective no one had ever seen before. His seminal 1905 work forever rearranged the world Newton’s labors had set up 300 years before.
If a scientist deserves to wear a white coat and have our awe and respect, Eisenstein did. So did Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Bohr and Carnot.
Today we are overrun with scientists like they were rats; there are so damn many of them. They can’t all be brilliant and likely very few of them are. How could we be blessed with 10,000 great thinkers when in the centuries before we had to make do with a dozen or so in a whole lifetime?
Today’s scientists wear white coats and demand our awe and respect. They are like a pygmies sitting on the shoulders of their predecessors while demanding the same respect their predecessors earned. They are kind of like Dr. Evil’s Mini-Me who relies on his benefactor’s power to give him credence.
Today’s science is a commodity like iron ore. It’s churned out by the ton and the product is weighed and accounted for in the same way. Unlike iron ore, it’s put away and never used again because it has no intrinsic value.
The worst are the climate scientists because there is no valid climate science as a science per se. If there was, about 2 or 3 scientists could fill the void. Instead what we get is a rat infestation of a strange activist-scientist hybrid who is long on ‘political activism’ and a little short on ‘science’. Political activism is easy, science is hard so it’s no surprise it attracts this “science” attracts who it does.
Bad science has always been connecting coincidence with causality without offering a coherent theory to account for it. Talentless scientists churn this kind of stuff out by the ton. So who are these scientists we are supposed to respect? They are primarily political activists who push an agenda. They use science to give them legitimacy.
Attention.
This is a legal notice from the US Department of Political Correctness.
Dear Sir or Madam. It has come to our attention that you have been continuously using the term “climate scientist” in various contexts. We hereby inform you that by recent findings this term is considered derogatory and insinuating various illegal behaviors, and is therefore not recommended to be used in public debate.
We hereby ask you to:
1) Stop using the offensive term, using politically correct replacements like “alternative scientist” whenever appropriate.
2) Issue appropriate corrections and retractions of previously published materials which contain the offensive term(s).
3) Notify the US Dept on PC as soon as possible that you have read and understood the above letter and have agreed to follow the suggested guidelines from that moment on.
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Wow! Thanks Dr. Brown, that was marvelous. Would it be possible to get a copy of that in pdf format?
Wow! Thanks Dr. Brown, that was marvelous. Would it be possible to get a copy of that in pdf format?
Only by cut and paste, unfortunately. I’m writing directly into the “Leave a Reply” box, which has no real facility for previewing or editing or saving or retrieving the source text — except by mouse.
Not a completely terrible interface, but I do so miss not having an “edit” button on the articles and replies I write, when I discover errors…
rgb
Fast neutrinos: I think, they did find a loose cable a few weeks ago that might explain the “effect”.
Yet, the experiment is going to be tested all over the world and created a huge collaboration.
There is too little stuff for phyisicists to work at novadays.
Mariss said @ur momisugly March 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm
I’d say we were overrun by people spouting bullshit. But then I’ve actually read several biographies of Einstein; my favourite’s Abraham Pais’ Subtle is the Lord.
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm
[ … ]
Thank You Robert for your great article; I agree with most most thoughts and also with your critique. And I’m very thankful to A.W., he practice freedom and let thoughts coming into the light of science.
Joe Bastardi says: “Yet I dont get a nickel for sticking my neck out on this issue ( contrary to the nonsense that is printed about guys like me being in the pocket of this group or that), except fighting for what I believe is the right answer. Thats my agenda, get it right. And if I am right, then people will remember who fought for what was right, and who simply just swam with the tide because it seemed convenient and everyone else was doing it, and making a buck off it at that. Its That simple. Its just a big weather forecast to me, and I am sorry if that insults the intelligence of those who want it to be something that is so complex, so tough, that no one else need apply but those intelligent enough to understand that they know better than everyone else, and because of that are entitled to force everyone else to their position.”
I love that statement. It reminds me on the statement given ~900 years ago Omar Khayyam has written in one of his books: “I always desired to investigate the various classes of Algebraic equations and discriminate, by means of proofs classes which admit a solution and which do not, because I found that such equations occur in solving some difficult problems. But, on account of adverse circumstances, I could not pursue the subject. We are in the danger that learned men would all perish. The few that remain have to undergo great hardships. Owing to the negligence of Hikmat (Science) in these times, the really learned men cannot find the opportunity and means for investigation. On the other hand the pseudo-Hakims of these days would represent the truth as false. They do not rise above deprecating others and self-show. They do not use what little they know except for the Requirements of a wretched carcass. On finding a person who devotes his whole life to the acquisition of truth and repudiation of falsehood and hypocrisy, a person who shuns selfishness and cunning, these pseudo-Hakims will only jeer and threaten him.” Omar Khayyam (page 76)
I think the problem with so called climate scientist is not really a lack of knowledge in science, but the corruption, which betrays the principles of science for a dollar or a job in this world of money hierarchy. I fear it is not possible to change the world, but as it is shown by your thoughts, it is possible to learn physics and the principles of science to be able to practice freedom in this biased world.
V.
Frizzy said @ur momisugly March 1, 2012 at 10:52 pm
I can but agree 🙂
One tiny quibble: the use of verify (prove to be true) rather than corroborate (strengthen). The former creates the certitude that leads to dogma.
Deadman said @ur momisugly March 1, 2012 at 8:35 pm
So that‘s what: “That is so in essence or effect, although not formally or actually; admitting of being called by the name so far as the effect or result is concerned” means. Informal, you are a treasure 🙂
Robert Brown: An intelligent and intelligible comment. Thank you.
Thanks for this story! The way is described, with all the setbacks but with a groundbreaking result, the only true scientist that comes to mind is Svensmark. I just know that one day he will get the recognition he deserves. That will be, excusez le mot, the tipping point in climate science.
As others have said, the declaration “the science is settled” gave away that this was a smoke screen, an overconfidence, a lie, if you will.
I asked someone who was saying, “big oil is funding shill scientists”, OK, what if one day the IPCC turns round and says that CO2 isn’t a problem after all? “Then I’ll know big oil got to them too.” It is completely circular.
Having said that I don’t think we can ignore the desires and views of climate change activists. We know that if AGW theory didn’t exist, they would still be pushing for something. We need to understand what it is that they really value and want. For example, maybe they want “justice” for the world — but HOW they envision justice working is something about their own interpretations, how they think, how they categorise things.
A lot of negativity gets projected onto big industry and capitalism (and it is debatable whether we even have capitalism, but nonetheless, somehow the world’s injustices are down to big money and greed, in their view.)
It is a cultural movement. Debating the science is secondary, because if and when the AGW model dies, these people will still want something. Some get called watermelons and maybe that’s the majority, but I think many are actually really interested in a “just world” but trouble is, the world is very complex.
That was a point that Michael Crichton made: environmentalists have very little appreciation of complexity. He compared the map of molecular paths in a single cell, to the Club Of Rome type of world systems map, and you can see, the Club of Rome was obviously not remotely having any chance of being right.
We can’t change what people value — if someone feels in their heart that they really want to see a just world, there is nothing you can do to change that — that is their prerogative, that is what they value most, that is how they see life. But the issue of complexity, this is something we all need to keep looking at. Environmentalists often try to invoke complexity by means of “the interconnectedness of all things” like, my car exhaust is drowning a small island. But that isn’t complex thinking, that’s magical thinking.
Real complexity is being able to see the actual network of relationships and their magnitudes and the cycles and the feedbacks.
There was a popular feminist who wrote that thin women, models in Western fashion magazines were just as bad as female mutilation practices in Africa, because if you make the judgment that Africa is worse, then that appeals to Western racist imperialism. So in order not to be a Western sexist male imperialist, you had to single out the Western fashion magazines, not the African tribal customs. This kind of “interconnected” thinking is a sort of typical thing in the humanities and is part and parcel of the sorts of arguments that people use when thinking about world justice. This is why you won’t get a straight answer to, “what about China’s emissions dwarfing ours?” because they see it as you trying to deny your own greed, for Western imperialist reasons.
Many people might say, well that’s just BS, but remember this is something that’s been prevalent in our culture for going on 30 years. People think this way. So I think we really have to look at complexity and raising the bar on complexity. Help people move from magical thinking to highly complex thinking.
If you can help someone see, actually see for themselves, greater complexity, then once they see it, there’s really no going back for them.
A brilliant post, Dr.Robert Brown. This should be a must read for every scientist involved this field of climate science.
Robert B
You have brought together in one essay (or essai) everything that has been written on this site in the past 4 years. Great piece of writing. (quotidien = daily)
Robert Brown says:
March 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm
——
Hey Anthony, how about raising R. Brown’s comment up to the status of a stand alone story?
Stefan says:
March 2, 2012 at 12:48 am
They are selfish, communists (community-ists) do nothing slobs. They want you to share your goods and shackles with them because they are too [snip . . looks like obnoxious graffito . . kbmod] idle to do it for themselves. They do not like authority. They want to be totally independent, to do what they want when they want and not have to worry about little things like money.
Robert Brown – fantastic post! The original article is also good, but Anthony, Robert Brown’s comment deserves to be elevated into a full post.
For me it was the “science is settled” statement that got me looking into MMGW – so totally opposite to everything I was taught. I remember the impending ice age in the seventies too! Watts up With That opened my eyes to the scale of the scam which has gone way beyond science and is now all about money and politics. How the tree ring counters with their dodgy statistics ever got elevated to such positions of prominence is still a mystery to me