By John Droz, jr
In paleoclimatologist Dr. Curt Stager’s recent Adirondack Almanac piece about me it’s startling that he so openly disavowed traditional Science. By comparison, consider his insightful quote back in 2011:
“… my preference is for refraining from aggressive activist stances. I do so because I value Science itself more than any individual topic that it addresses.
“I consider Science to be one of the most valuable inventions of human civilization, and I recognize how precious and vulnerable to corruption it is as one who believes in objective reality, the fallibility of human perception, and the need for objective methods of seeking truth.
“I also recognize that public trust in Science itself depends heavily upon trust in the objectivity of those who pursue it. We must walk a fine line between defending truth and trying to force it on other people, and I personally choose to take a cautious approach in walking that line.”
I agree with every word of his well-phrased, important statement. However, the above-referenced article indicates that Curt has apparently abandoned his earlier commitment to traditional Science, and has evolved into a card-carrying political science activist. Since this transformation is becoming distressingly more common among scientists, let’s look into some ways he now deviates from real Science.
This is a key sentence in his article: “The consensus position that global average warming during the last half-century is real and mostly caused by humans, shared by the vast majority (97%±) of truly qualified climate scientists, is the result of huge amounts of peer-reviewed research from many independent branches of the sciences that have been conducted worldwide over many years.”
————————
Let’s start with this definition: “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) is the belief that unusual global warming is caused almost exclusively by man-made influences.
#1 — When two scientists disagree, each one politely presents the best empirical evidence that they believe supports their case. Disparaging the other’s motivations, past associations, etc. (e.g. “Droz has been associated with ultra-conservative, pro-fossil-fuel organizations such as ATI”), and calling them names (“denier”) are political tactics, outside the realm of science.
#2 — Curt inaccurately asserts that the only people competent enough to assess the validity of the AGW matter, are “truly qualified climate scientists.” Whether the AGW hypothesis is true or not rests on the scientific validity of its proponents’ claims. Any competent Scientist can see whether other scientists (in their field or otherwise), have failed to follow scientific protocol.
#3 — Curt mischaracterizes a Scientific hypothesis by disparagingly calling it “mere guesswork.” Here’s a reasonable definition:
“The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method — the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis is a creative process, based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition, or experience. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability.”
OK, now we understand that, here is the really important part: what does it take for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory, the next step up the ladder?
“Theories, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable.“ One scientific theory (cited as an example by this source, UC Berkeley), “has proven itself in thousands of experiments and observational studies.”
However, in this case, the Global Warming promoters have simply decreed that their AGW hypothesis has been elevated to the level of a scientific theory — but without adhering to the necessary scientific protocol. Such proclamations are the tactics of political scientists.
#4 — Curt is well aware of all this, but is averse to admitting that the AGW matter is a hypothesis: because he (and other AGW proponents) do not want to adhere to traditional scientific methodology. Typical excuses they give are: a) it’s too time-consuming, b) AGW is too complicated to be analyzed by traditional Science, c) AGW is not falsifiable, and d) traditional science methodology casts significant doubt on the AGW hypothesis. In other words Curt is effectively saying “let’s skip over this burdensome Science stuff, and cut to the chase.” That’s a political science person’s perspective: let’s get on to changing policies!
#5 — It’s unfortunate that Curt did not publicly acknowledge that we have HUGE gaps of knowledge in our understanding of climate. How accurate can computer models be when there are substantial unknowns involved? Traditional Scientists are very clear about exactly what we know and don’t know. Political scientists glaze over the unknowns.
#6 — Curt makes multiple references to “peer-review” but fails to inform readers that there are 2000± peer-reviewed papers that contest his AGW position (e.g. see here). A scientist objectively presents both sides of any dispute. (Note Curt’s quote about that at the beginning!) On the other hand, political scientists just promote their own agenda, pretending that there is no other reasonable conclusion than theirs.
#7 — Curt’s reference to “consensus” is similarly problematic. If he has irrefutable science to support his AGW hypothesis, why would he talk about such unscientific matters as consensus? The Scientific Method says nothing about consensus.
What is also indisputable is that there have been numerous cases in the past where the consensus of what scientists believed, was subsequently proven to be wrong. Genuine scientists are well aware of that reality, so they would never try to justify a hypothesis by referencing other scientists’ beliefs. On the other hand political science is all about getting a consensus.
#8 — Despite his lengthy commentary, Curt didn’t actually address renewable energy — the topic of my article that he disliked. When politicians are asked questions that might embarrass them, they smoothly change the topic. That’s another stark difference between real science and political science.
—————————
Those with Science on their side (on any topic) will put forth a position: 1) that follows traditional science conventions, 2) that honestly acknowledges how much we don’t know about the subject, 3) with no ad hominems, 4) without references to unscientific matters like consensus, and 5) without making false implications about the veracity of peer-review. Those taking a political science perspective will do the opposite.
It’s quite clear from all this that the AGW issue is not really about CO2. Instead AGW is just a convenient vehicle for those who want to radically alter our American way of life — to literally convert us to an agrarian, Marxist society. Just closely examine the elements (and consequences) of the Green New Deal, which is just a trial balloon for the real agenda here.
The bottom line is that AGW activists want us: a) to accept a hypothesis that has not followed traditional Science protocols, and b) to fork over $100± Trillion to implement “solutions” (like industrial wind energy) that are scientifically unproven. What could go wrong?
(Note: see here for a more detailed response to Dr. Stager’s polemic.)
John Droz, jr. physicist 3-25–19
PS — My original article (that sparked this exchange) was strenuously objecting to the Adirondack Park Agency’s (APA) proposed new Renewable Energy Policy I was opposed to the APA setting the stage for industrial wind energy to be in one of the premier parks on the planet. My objections precipitated Curt Stager going off on a tangent about AGW (see above)… The good news is that I just heard from the head person at the APA, and she said (based on inputs received from me and others) that the APA has decided NOT to enact their policy endorsing renewable energy. Kudos to them: that’s a wonderful, positive development!
Anything that uses the 97% claim is worthless from the start .
Let use a example to explain why.
If in front of me I can see 10 cats, out of which 5 are black, I can say with authority and accuracy that 50% of cats I can see are black. I cannot say 50% of ALL cats are black because I simply do not have evidenced to support that claim .
Now lets us say that in front of my in a dark more I am aware of a ‘number of cats ‘ and that some of these will be black . In this case I cannot say with authority and accuracy state which percentage of the total cats the black carts are of the whole. But I can ‘guess ‘ and I can lie about my certainty .
How does this relate to the 97%?
Well firstly there is no agreed definition of what a climate scientists even is , for example the IPCC has used this term to describe failed politicians and railway engineers with ‘tourers problems.
Secondly there is no accepted for the number of scientist of any short, the research has simply not been done , and with deaths . promotions, employment, unemployment , all that can be said is that this is ever changing number .
So you are now in a dark room, where there is unknow number of animals .,some of which may be black cats . You cannot now, by any worthwhile measure, tell anyone the percentage of blacks cats in the room. And to try and claim you ‘can’ and in scientifically meaningful way, is highest quality BS
And that is where there the whole 97% claim is at , and way using it is idiocy and not a sign of ‘settled anything ‘ .
No. It’s been elevated to an absolute truth which cannot be questioned.
Of course, it is questioned, but anyone doing so becomes a “denier” and thus beneath contempt.
From the article: “Theories, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. . .
However, in this case, the Global Warming promoters have simply decreed that their AGW hypothesis has been elevated to the level of a scientific theory — but without adhering to the necessary scientific protocol. Such proclamations are the tactics of political scientists.”
end excerpts
That is exactly what has happened. The Alarmists don’t officially claim the hypothesis had advanced to a theory, but their language implies this is the case. Someone ought to ask the alarmists how they justify doing this because it is obvious they have a long way to go to get to the theory stage (as described above).
Nothing in climate science is “concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable”.
The following are all quotes from Dr. Stager
“Sediment cores from Arctic lakes show that the ice-free conditions they now experience in summer have not happened for thousands of years previously and are therefore not due to cyclic changes. Oxygen levels are declining as carbon dioxide increases, And decreasing concentrations of carbon-13 isotopes in the air identify the carbon atoms in the excess carbon dioxide as coming primarily from fossil fuels.Greenhouse warming has made thermometers register higher temperatures at thousands of weather stations all over the planet. Meanwhile the stratosphere has cooled , Ice on our lakes has been forming later and melting earlier, as documented in local ice-out contests and nature journals. ”
*****************************************************************************
These are all outright lies.
Arctic weather seems to go in 60-100 year cycles. There have been documented ice free conditions in many places of the Arctic 100 years ago; (conditions that don’t exist today). As for oxygen levels in the atmosphere going down 1)the measurements use a proxy that assumes that the amount of nitogen is constant. 2) Even at that, the oxygen levels have dropped only 0.06 % in 150 years. As for ocean levels of oxygen they are not measured by the Argo buoys, and scientists have measured only dead zones where red tides have occurred. Any statistic on ocean oxygen levels have all come from models.
Temperature stations in the NCAR record and the USHCN record along with the UAH satellite record show no warming in last 150 years.
Stratospheric cooling may because of increased net CO2 in the atmosphere but that doesn’t translate to global tropospheric warming. In fact NOAA and UAH show no lower stratospheric cooling between 1996 and 2014. For global warming to happen the atmosphere would have to expand and thus there would be more water vapour in the stratosphere compared to the previous altitudes. To date no increase of stratopheric water vapour has been shown. In fact stratospheric water vapour has declined by 10% since 2000. Measurement error can be as large as 40% however.
http://windermerearea.ca/Ice%20Break%20Up.html
Dates of ice breakup on the above linked lake shows that that lake did not receive the global warming memo.