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”
“Claiming that Arp “lost his career” sounds like a denigration of the Max Planck Institut für Astrophysik that it surely does not deserve.”
No I did point out that Dr. Arp “lost his telescope time.” And no denigration is meant to Max Planck in Germany. But certainly neither do the academics in science, who dismissed him for observing the physical association of low redshift galaxies with high redshift quasars, merit any celebration for “willingness to be skeptical” or to “look at alternative explainations.” That is hardly an honest appraisal and richly deserved a correction.
Thanks Lucy Skywalker, noted. Cheers to your wiki project.
Zeke said @ur momisugly March 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Not sure where I “celebrated” Arp’s dismissal, or condoned those who did. If you can find a quote I will stand “corrected” in my “dishonesty”. I’m usually taken to task for my support of Arp’s superb observational skills.
Pompous Git: Pardon me, I am responding to the conclusion of the above post which says,
This brief incident with the neutrino which may or may not have broken SR is being used to demonstrate a great deal of scientific flexibility, but it is not a true test and that is why I suggested a better experiment, which would demonstrate whether there is any admission or acknowledgment of contrary observations or alternate explanations. Thanks Git always a pleasure. Zeke
I enjoyed your reference to Einstein and Le Maitre as non professionals making significant contributions in other fields. Other examples are Wilbur and Orville Wright, two brothers operating a bicycle shop inventing the airplane, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk who made a very significant contribution to genetics, and Clyde Tombaugh, the son of a farm couple who discovered scads of asteroids and Pluto. He did go to college and get a master’s degree in astronomy, but only AFTER his famous discoveries.
I just finished reading ” An Imaginary Tale”, by Paul Nahan, and just learned that the three independent co-inventors of the mathematical concept of a real and imaginary axis for complex numbers – the “Argand Plane” were Jean Robert Argand -a Swiss bookkeeper, Casper Wessel, a Norweigan surveyor, and Adrien -Quentin Buee, a French abbe.
As you stated, the ideas themselves are what should be addressed, not who proposed them.
As Richard Feynman stated, the scientific method is based on the idea that you cannot rely on experts.
I’m not sure religiosity is the most parsimonious explanation. I think they’re displaying fear. Fear that dissent will derail the “necessary” precautionary actions which alone will save us. (Incidentally, fear of having a marvelous gravy train derailed or deprived of fuel, too, of course!) Fear that the science consensus and political will might be compromised.
All in all, a symptom of vulnerability, weakness.
@ur momisugly Zeke
I think you are conflating belief in BBT with (all or almost all) physicists. BBT is almost ubiquitous among astronomers, but they are a small subset of physicists. There are ever so many physicists who have noticed the failed predictions of BBT as well as the shifting of goalposts. There are from a philosopher’s POV many similarities between CAGW “science” and BBT, though in their defence, BB Theorists do not by and large have any great effect on how we live our lives.
I think that the root of the problem is turning science into one’s religion.
I could go on, but this is all a bit OT.
It would seem to me that “Climate Science and Special Relativity” is contrasting all of science, described as “true science” in the article, with the abysmal failings and foibles of “climate” “science.” If you accept that, then I have not “conflated” anything. Astronomy is implicated in the contrast.
The connection between GR, SR, and Big Bang Theory would be the use of the observations of the bending of starlight as confirmation of GR. We are now permanently frozen in a curving spacetime model of gravitation. Gravitational lensing of starlight is used to dismiss Halton Arp’s observations and preserve the Big Bang-expanding universe model. Now that there are alternative explanations, and decades of space age observations, these cannot and will not be admitted under the current paradigm, because the science is settled. This article’s boast of rigor in the sciences and willingness to re-examine and re-visit paradigms and the history of science is false boasting.
Brian H said @ur momisugly March 3, 2012 at 9:54 am
Do you not think that religion might be driven by fear?
Since this was my first ever post to WUWT, I have been truly gratified (and a trifle mauled) by all the comments above..
For my shortcomings, I apologise. For stimulating debate – even debate to prove my assertion false – I am grateful.
I never at any time was trying to criticise Einstein, Hoyle, Le Maitre or any of the myriad hard-working scientists out there – far from it. But what I did want to do is contrast (IMHO) the apparent treatment of contra-ideas within some scientific disciplines – most notably Physics and Climate Science (in its broadest sense)
And yes – a certain amount of “artistic license” was used in my opening paragraphs – but hey – this is a blog not my doctorate thesis.
Andi
@ur momisugly Zeke
No need to ditch SR & GR to explain Arp’s observations. I pointed out to a BBT adherent recently that if quasars are both small and massive then gravitational redshift could explain their high redshift. The response was that only expanding space can explain redshift. It seems to me that belief in BBT has always required discarding aspects of the standard model, rather than BBT acceptance being an unavoidable consequence of accepting the standard model. YMMV.
No need for sorry Robert. It is a pleasure to be able to assist you in your excellent prose. There is but one writer the Git knows of who could write flawlessly from start to finish: Bert Russell. The rest of us need editors. Some of the writers the Git has edited required almost as much effort as the writer expended. Most required less, but it is a certitude that editing your prose would require the least; your intent was utterly clear. You are a master.
As a matter of curiosity, did you know Russell? I’m a second-generation disciple — my philosophy instructor was George Roberts at Duke, from whom I took literally half of my major. Russell was a master. In more ways than just his prose. “Problems in Philosophy” is still in my mind one of the most succinct statements of “philosophy” in existence, although Russell missed the importance of Boole. Still, for 1912 it was awesome.
rgb
Dr. Brown: marvelous post!
Could we find the global temperature? Sure. But it would cost money. LOTS of money. Just take the Earth as a 4000 mile radius sphere. Imagine putting a grid on the Earth so that all sensors are no more than 0.0001 radian apart. Have said sensor measure temperature, etc. at 10 altitudes. Cost it out. We are talking big money here. This will never be done.
Our records come primarily from airports, sea lanes, and urban areas. These hardly constitute an unbiased sample of the Earth. Who will plant and maintain a weather station in the center of the Mojave Desert? Or in the Grand Tetons?
As for relativity: I remember reading the objections to Newton’s Calculus, [Bishop Barclay] and the strident objections to Universal Gravitation. As for Special Relativity, few could get by the mathematics. As for General Relativity, there is still considerable difficulty with solutions.
You have left out Fritz Zwicky, who pointed out in the 1930s the difficulty with gravitiation and the stability of galactic clusters. THe virial theorem shows that galaxy clusters are strictly temporary. And this is complemented by the redshift results in the spectra of the outlying arms of spiral nebulae. And Zwicky should be credited with black holes, for he first designed a search for them, using large objective prisms.
As to quantum theory, Feynman said it best: “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand anything.”
And how about continental drift? There was no such thing, we were told by the experts. Those trans-Atlantic cables just kept breaking, for no discernible reason. Then came sonar, ocean floor mapping, and LO! the Atlantic Rift.
Look out for those amateurs. They may be on to something.