Guest essay by Forrest M. Mims III
Traditional science required a skeptical view of one’s own findings until they could be replicated, especially by others. Unfortunately, skepticism has been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,” a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science. When I asked the NAS about this unfortunate deletion, they explained there was insufficient space to include this fundamental aspect of doing science. Yet I counted nearly 10 pages of white space in the new edition.
Despite the NAS change, I’ll continue to view science, including mine, through a veil of skepticism. That’s why I am concerned about what has become of the global warming/climate change movement, which is rapidly assuming the status of a paradigm that is automatically assumed correct by many of those unfamiliar with the science.
Some of those who criticize skeptics like me seem unaware of the scandals and the political and religious-like motivations behind the climate change movement. They need to become familiar with the content of the Climategate emails and the use of non-peer-reviewed data and erroneous information about Himalayan glaciers in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. (Disclosure: I was an expert reviewer of the IPCC ‘s AR-5 Report.)
The IPCC scandals occurred under the leadership of former IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who acknowledged in his resignation letter that his “fight” against global warming is his “religion” and “dharma” (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/150224_pachauri_letter.pdf). Pachauri had to resign after charges of sexual harassment of some of his staff.
Those who doubt political motivations are behind the global warming/climate change movement, including the Paris Agreement, should simply read what major political leaders have stated. Beginning at the top is Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and the subject of this United Nations media release (http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally):
“Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally“
Tuesday, 03 February 2015 18:34
“Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I won’t post the video again, but studying Richard Feynman will educate those who don’t realize what science, or the key to science is. Here is a text of a short quote, find the clip easily on YouTube:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.
It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
Richard Feynman
“If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
That’s true, unless there are flaws in the experiment, or the observations are not made or recorded properly. That, too, can happen in science. We need to have a healthy skepticism of all parts of the scientific process, at least until the experiment can be repeatably and consistently replicated.
Sometimes creating an experiment to provide “proof” of a concept results in an experiment with confirmation bias where unexpected results are discarded as faulty; when in fact the “faulty” results are correct. Just look at how blind tests on medications show that research results were biased by expectations. Reproducibility often fails. Even if we repeat an experiment exactly and get fully reproducible results, it may be that we are proving the results of the experiment NOT the concept. With all variables reduced to constants in the experiments (all done at STP – just kidding) it may be that we fail to see the holes in the concept.
Climatology is a “science” carefully avoiding experiments. It is based on the notion of “sensitivity” – please outline how to measure it. Also on an Effective Radiation Level – how to measure it? Many years ago I talked to a budding climatologist and proposed to build a big greenhouse, split in two parts, one filled with air, and one with pure CO2. Measure temperatures, then switch the gases, measure again. Answer: That would not prove anything. How the warming works is the change in ERL. I doubt that climatologists know how the greenhouses would work, but they don’t have to – they have the ERL card in their sleeve.
This Feynman clip / quote is the one I often use in my online Climate D*nialist Propoganda talks . Glad to see someone else uses it too. I suspect we are working for the same Big Oil Corporation – see you at the Xmas party!
Seriously though Feynman stuff is a veritable goldmine of ideas for assisting your arguments.Thoroughly recommend a bit of browsing through some of his stuff on YouTube for ideas in this context.
Forest,
“What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?”
“Unfortunately, skepticism has been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,” a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science.”
I (nobody special) have been trying to get what to me seem to be otherwise intelligent and well educated people around here to wonder about this shifting toward “absolutism” for some time now. I believe the shift got going in earnest with Evolution theory (I mean in the grand origins story sense) being promoted to “settled science” . . (to the point of people being forced to pay to have public school children indoctrinated with it as scientific fact that’s beyond any rational skepticism.)
Once that bridge was crossed, it seems to me that the sort of *If you don’t agree with the leading experts, you’re anti-science* sort of “crisis” Siants (sounds like science ; ) power grab, as I see it, became virtually inevitable. (Regardless of the ultimate truth of the matter).
I agree. Evolution has long been regarded as “settled science,” and I suspect that many climate skeptics might agree. But this does not explain why textbooks still include popular evolutionary myths, the discredited peppered moth story being a classic example. Nor has evolutionary theory explained the origin of single-molecule walking motors that transport organelles and starch along nanotracks within cells. I don’t want to change the discussion away from the traditional role of skepticism in science, especially since I’m on deadline for a new book and have so little free time. I merely want to point out that established paradigms can indoctrinate entire generations and even result in ridicule and the loss of opportunities and jobs for those who merely ask questions. For example, look at what happened to me at Scientific American magazine after the editor learned I reject Darwinian evolution and abortion, topics the magazine was not assigning me to write about: http://www.forrestmims.org/scientificamerican.html . While losing “The Amateur Scientist” assignment was depressing at the time, my columns they published and those they didn’t led directly to a Rolex Award, finding an error in NASA’s ozone satellite and my first publication in Nature. My science career was begun by that event. Unfortunately, not everyone benefits from failing to accept scientific paradigms, as WUWT readers and contributors know so well. My concern is that the treatment of climate change in environmental science textbooks will become as fixed as the treatment of evolutionary science. Myths will be taught as facts, and well-informed students who answer test questions correctly may risk failing tests.
The vast majority will “bite their tongue” as they seek to progress through their careers but I am truly baffled by the very low numbers who whistle blow when they have nothing to lose e.g. after retirement or on a change of career. Surely we should expect to see more of them? Anyone got a theory on this?
Those very low numbers you speak of are simply because each individual has to ask themselves …… “what have I got to gain by being a whistleblower?”
Or conversely, …… “what have I got to lose by being a whistleblower?”
If they are retired, it will likely discred them for not speaking up during their tenure when they knew something was amiss.
If they have made a change of career, then speaking up “negatively” about their previous employer could instill “mistrust” of themselves within the thoughts of their new employer and/or fellow employees.
It’s the money. Skeptics aren’t “team” players. Ask what happens to skeptics who rock the boss’ boats? Ask what happens to an engineer who says, “I told you so.” e.g. Challenger.
“What you are skeptical of, scientists were skeptical back in the 50s and and 60s.”
Actually, they couldn’t have been skeptical of catastrophic man made global warming during those years because the planet was having global cooling……..and not from the increasing CO2 during those decades.
However, there were many scientists that were skeptics of the theory that the global cooling would lead to another Ice Age………….and the skeptics were right.
In retrospect, it seems silly that some scientists were so concerned about global cooling in the 50’s-60’s-70’s but actually, an objective scientist knows that the main temperature threat to life on this planet is cold.
Current CO2 levels are still just barely half of what life considers optimal and most life does better with temperatures a bit warmer than this vs colder.
However, climate science assumes that the ideal temperature and CO2 level of the planet was the level measured when humans began to burn fossil fuels.
We will never get to an atmospheric level of CO2 that is anything but (more) beneficial to life. However, greenhouse gas warming that results is likely to have some negative consequences(more flooding/high end rain events for instance).
An objective scientist does not look only at the worst case scenario of the potentially harmful effects……….they view the entire picture. Being skeptical allows a scientist to see this.
Following a belief system that defines colder and less CO2 as better for life and the biosphere should send up red flags!
Maybe better for some creatures and some humans but life?
There are loads of environmental problems and pollution caused by humans. The wasting/excessive use of natural resources, especially water needs to be addressed. Instead, the world focuses on fighting the increase of a beneficial gas.
Any scientist or environmentalist with a minimal amount of objectivity and skepticism should be able to see this.
Science is a lot more difficult if a bunch of smart alec’s actually take the time to check your work for errors. You are supposed to trust the scientists got it right. after all they are scientists, which is pretty much the same as gods. here is what the NAS opens with:
“The scientific enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Society
trusts that scientific research results are an honest and accurate
reflection of a researcher’s work”
Science has no room for skepticism, it is now all about trust. Trust us, the check is in the mail.
ferdberple:
You have a piece of the problem, but I think you also miss a point.
Back when I was in graduate school, doing analytical chemistry (real empirical measurement stuff), I came to an understanding. It did not matter if you had a lab filled with the best and most modern equipment and greatest spectrometers. If people did not believe your results, your results are worthless.People would believe your results only if they had confidence that you did *not* “adjust” results, fabricate data, and all the rest. In other words, they would trust you to call them like you see them and tell it like it is.
Then you would be trusted, and your data would be held as reliable.
{Whatever did happen to “call them like you see them and tell it like it is” in science?}
Believing experimental results?
Allais.
Ah Ha. I just remembered, Anthony is going to experience a total eclipse.
Once a scientist stops asking questions they are no longer a scientist.
An argument made occasionally by Climate Change™ enthusiasts goes like this: “… if the IPCC hypothesis (actually guesswork) is not correct, what is the CAGW sceptics’ theory?
Not ‘better theory’ because Kuhn’s idea doesn’t assume that the new paradigm is any closer to the truth than the old one which has outlived its usefulness.
There is apparently no room for CC™ agnosticism, everyone must conform to the current paradigm.
In order to counter agnosticism a version of Pascal’s wager is usually employed — the ‘insurance argument’ — which relies on a false analogy (no-one takes out ‘insurance’ to stop something happening — that’s extortion), assumes that CC™ must be unequivocally harmful and that the proposed premiums are affordable.
It’s arguing that you need to go re-invent the wheel before you can claim that their wheel isn’t rolling.
“However, there were many scientists that were skeptics of the theory that the global cooling would lead to another Ice Age………….and the skeptics were right.”
Not really. Without extra CO2, we were headed into an ice age in many many 1000s of years; that is what should be happening. The only reason that some were skeptical in those days is because of the increase in CO2; they realized that we would not follow the natural course. And they were correct, the unnatural increase in CO2 is changing the natural course of the temperature of the earth.
To whatever extent that may be the case, it’s for the better. More warmth is always preferable to less. More plant growth is always preferable to less. Your trace gas bogeyman isn’t the world-ending terror you wanted it to be.
And humanity and its activities are not “unnatural”. We’re not the only creatures in this world who make changes to our environment to suit ourselves. Birds weave nests, spiders spin webs, ants construct intricate networks of underground tunnels and chambers, bees and their hives, beavers, etc. In this regard we are just the same but more.
There is zero evidence that the additional one molecule of CO2, ie four instead of three 100 years ago, has had any effect at all upon average global temperature, which of course isn’t even measurable.
So far, more CO2 has been a huge boon to the planet in general and humanity in particular. More would be better.
Per 10,000 dry air molecules. Skipped that part. Sorry.
Gabro,
Keep in mind that I’m sympathetic to the position of skeptics. However, I’m compelled to ask, “If one extra molecule of CO2 can’t impact the average global temperature, how can it be ‘a huge boon to the planet…’?”
If CO2 causes so much warming, why do we always re-glaciate when it is at its highest levels?
How can humans change the natural course of the temperature of the Earth when they are part of the natural course of the Earth? We are not aliens, are we?
Again we are questiioning the science, the scientific method and repeatability, all for the correct reasons.
Following a carreer in guiding corporate restructure, one gets a sense of productivity.
Atmospheric science despite the large annual global cost, seems to be acheiving very little. It is an industry with extremely low productivity,and real meaningful results. There appears to be very little real progress being made. If it was selling its output for revenue, it would be bankrupt. Certainly data is being gathered, but the industries ability to interpret that data into intelligent results is poor.
The CAGW debate is so narrow (CO2 is the culprit) it will go now where. At present the POTUS has the influence.
What is required is a paradigm shift to remove the need to debate, Not the existing debate on the accuracy of a calculation on CO2 sensitivity. There is so much more out there that is unknown, and Scientists are not making headway, such as sea ice etc.
Then there is the problem of a non scientist breaking new ground. How many of the existing elites, identities and leaders would support it, embrace it, make it their own and champion it, especially it it conflicts with their own beliefs. Those entrenched beliefs run deep and can become real barriers.
So it appears its up to us, and sometimes you do get lucky. All it takes is an open mind, and thinking outside the square, because there’s not much coming from inside the square
Regards to all
Flat Earth philosophy, not limited to science. Inference rather than deductive reasoning. Progressive assumptions/assertions with compounded divergence. Liberal departures from a limited frame of reference (i.e. scientific logical domain) in time and space. Circular chain of evidence and reasoning (e.g. models and hypotheses).
Skepticism taken out of science. What do ya know.
Well, in Medicine, they already removed Hippocrates’ insistence on sanctity of life…
The American Medical Association used to be against abortion. This is a matter of historical record.
Nobody batted an eye that the Hippocratic Oath included the statement to provide no aide to ending a pregnancy.
“I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Politics got involved. The AMA, and most of the Medical Establishment, shifted to be pro-choice. This was largely in the 1960s.
When no one was looking, they also decided there was not enough room in the Hippocratic Oath to retain the anti-abortion statement. It got “modernized.”
“I won’t assist in killing, unless there is a pretty good reason.” Wow, what a commitment to sanctity of life.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1969.htm
“Those who doubt political motivations are behind the global warming/climate change movement, including the Paris Agreement, should simply read what major political leaders have stated. Beginning at the top is” Margaret Thatcher, who promoted the idea as a political weapon against the coal miners’ unions in the UK.
RE: “What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?”
It was sacrificed on the alter of socialism, the face of which is inscribe “The ends justify the means!”
It has long been the case in science that once you’ve been caught cheating, that’s you out of the scientific community. No second chance. On that basis, Climategate should have been enough to nail this nonsense. The mere language used in those emails suggested that data tampering was commonplace and accepted. Which, should have been enough to meet the criterion for expulsion form the scientific community for those responsible.
I’d emphasize that whether the offender is right or wrong about his results is immaterial; the fact that he’s been fabricating data is enough grounds for expulsion. It may seem draconic but it has to be that way. Few people understand niche scientific disciplines; in some cases there might be less than ten people in the whole world who are qualified to review a publication. Therefore without stringent requirements for honesty the specialists in those disciplines would be free to make any false claims they liked.
I can answer that question in one symbol: $
I think part of what is going on is that the fact that Co2 is a radiatively active gas in the IR spectrum is all the experimental proof they need, ie it is an experimentally proven fact.
That is all the more depth any of these people think about, and it probably makes sense to assume it just adds to the existing radiatively active gases, and you have experimentally proven warming.
It’s just the assumption it add is wrong. There’s no evidence it adds, and there’s evidence it is nonlinear, in fact it tries to stop the temp from falling once it nears dew point. That’s why measured temps are not matching the models, and never will.
It isn’t warming globally, it’s just cooling a different amount of tropical air over land vs water than it did 30 years ago.
My opinion is that skepticism is responsible for not only for the success of science but also stamping out superstition and prejudice, and increasing human liberty. With its decline superstition advances once again. I am disappointed that the NAS couldn’t find room for it in their booklet, but I am not surprised. Feynman himself would not join NAS when he was nominated, saying something to the effect that he didn’t want to join an organization the principal role of which was only to figure out who was august enough to be a member.
Skepticism was inconvenient for Progressive messaging. No deeper issue than that.
The Fourth Reich does not allow dissent.
There is another aspect to science that is commonly overlooked here: To observe, describe, measure and report. There need not be any conclusions that require experimentation to validate – only peer reviews that check that the recording process was robust. Its not all about self importance and fame
This was one of my goals, provide reports on surface data that represent what was recorded over various land areas, station id’s,etc.
No one asks me about it, so I suspect anyone who downloads it, don’t do it. The documentation is very light, and was expecting to get questions. I then posted some graphs, with descriptions, but just data, when it doesn’t look like they expect, it goes in the I don’t know pile.
So, now I go right to, water vapor has an almost exact negative feedback to any changes to daily ghg (other than water) forcing that night, and erases most if not all excess.
Oh https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
Liberals. Liberals claiming words mean whatever they like because they’re too ignorant to understand that change isn’t an improvement.
For the same reason they don’t talk about the Tienanmen Square massacre in China
“Pandora’s Lab” Paul Offit
Fast, fun, fascinating read.
“Climate” science is to real science what lobotomies and trepanning are to medical science.
“Climate” science is as fraudulent as the “science” behind banning DDT.
Trepanning is still a legitimate medical procedure to alleviate cranial pressure from meningitis and other forms of brain inflammation, that’s still practiced in “Third World” situations when the equipment for more advanced brain operations isn’t available.
Answer: It got run over by ten thousand Brinks money trucks driven by advocacy groups and cheered on by politicos seeing a carbon tax revenue pot of gold plus the power that comes with it. It could literally fuel the Democratic Party for the next hundred years.
Where do they stand on coal fired power stations for the poor?
Skepticism! Science! This is now a monumental Movement to free yo’all from your current shackles to journey to the Promised Land-
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/al-gore-says-climate-change-is-like-slavery/