Greetings from the (hot = 34 degrees today here in Burnaby)
Great White North. I see that you are discussing a topic of
considerable importance, and I can't resist putting my oar in.
I hope it is a helpful contribution.
I relate for your consideration a parallelism in history:
Martin Gardner noted in his book "Fads and fallacies in the
name of science" that to be considered a good Nazi in the
thirties one had to believe in Hohlweltlehre, the cosmology
that has us living on the inside of a hollow Earth, despite
the notably poor scientific grounding of that theory.
In the United States and Canada today, in order to be
considered a good liberal, one must profess the belief that
man's activities have been and are still causing the "global
temperature" to rise, and that this is a Bad Thing, despite
the notably poor scientific grounding of that theory. and the
debatable truth (for Canada) of its implication.
There are many other examples in history of this linkage
between political coloration and belief. When it is strictly
religious belief that is involved we all feel superior, but often
it is unfounded science that is at issue. Take, for example,
the "points vs. balls" debate on the efficacy of lightning rods
at the time of the American Revolution (see "The Flight of
Thunderbolts" by Sir Basil Schonland). In that case both
sides were wrong,
Without making sarcastic comments, I feel (after
considerable study) that the problem of determining the
truth of this second proposition is still well beyond the
capability of the best of the climate scientists. Moreover,
the problem is greatly complicated by nonscientific factors
that impede the progress of climate science. I refer, of
course, to political interference and Official (governmental
and international) pressures under which these scientists
must work and publish. This pressure has become
sufficiently intense that, for example, the Editor-in-Chief of
"Climate Research", Hans von Storch, resigned today when
other editors protested his editorial "apologizing" for the
publication of a paper effectively opposing the Official
Position of the IPCC. Clearly human political tumult is
rampant in this field. Seldom has such an environment been
conducive to scientific progress.
Global climate science is really hard! We physicists are in
an excellent position to understand a correct and complete
theoretical framework for climate science, but such a
framework does not seem likely to appear in the
foreseeable future. Moreover the great majority of us is
incapable of recognizing an incomplete theory. The many
factors known to be important are not all familiar to us, and
the list of those factors is very probably still incomplete.
To get a taste of the sort of dissent that exists in the field
read, for example, "Taken by storm: the troubled science.
policy and politics of global warming" by Christopher
Essex and Ross McKitrick. This is just one of a number of
works by dissenting (anti-Kyoto) climate scientists. It gives
a taste of the depth and breadth of the problem. I cite it
particularly because it is Canadian, and I have had difficulty
convincing my liberal colleagues that there is a serious
problem with our country's position on Kyoto using US
references. (To be considered to be liberal in Canada one
must also be somewhat anti-US.) In the US you should be
looking to the works of several "dissident" scientists, my
favorite being Richard Lindzen of MIT (q.v.).
I don't keep up with phys-l, I'm afraid. I will try to look in from
time to time, but if you wish to communicate privately with
me please use my email address: palmer@sfu.ca.