Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] what kind of scientific suppression is this?



I'll respond to a few of these points, but understand that I am only a mild
skeptic here and one who believes that there are enough other good reasons
for controlling emissions that I am quite in favor of measured and
reasonable efforts for doing so. See comments below.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Loats" <loats_j@fortlewis.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] what kind of scientific suppression is this?


In reading this discussion I saw an argument that I have seen many times
in the global warming debate. Here it is:

Rick Tarara wrote:
But it has now become in the self-interest of the climate scientists to
push
Global Warming scenarios that get them more funding.
So my question for Rick, or anyone else that wants to speak up, is about
whether this is really a valid argument. This is not a question about
the merits of climate change science, but about the validity of the
above criticism. I would say that this is not a valid argument, for the
following reasons:


Again the primary problem with the 'science' here is that it is virtually
all modeling (determining causes and future trends). Anyone who has done
modeling (I do some very simple stuff) knows that you largely get out of
the model what you put in. That is reason enough to be a bit skeptical at
least. Few if any of us here are climate specialists, so it is hard to know
just how valid the models are. One example (and this is actually a plus for
the climate group because it got published) is that some studies indicate
that the aerosols from fossil fuel use actually produce a cooling effect (of
maybe half a degree). How many of the models out there include this effect?
Ultimately the field is EXTREMELY complex and the possible feedbacks are
many, but the bottom line, IMO, as far as your question goes, is questioning
if the degree of agreement amongst the models is indicative of good science
or just similar model input.

First, there is no question that "success" in a scientific research
effort leads to further funding. This is true in all scientific
endeavors, yet somehow scientific progress gets made anyway. Are we
really to believe that "climate scientists" (who are presented here as a
monolithic group) are swayed by money more than scientists that study
new drugs, or new building materials? The ideal of the current
scientific system is that through the peer review process, even biases
created by money, prestige or ego can be ferreted out and progress can
be made. Why would this system, which can certainly be criticized, still
be considered effective in other areas, but be suspect in the area of
climate change?

Thus, the second problem I see with this argument is that it requires we
believe in either a vast scientific conspiracy or that the global
warming doubters are poorly funded. It seems absurd to say that funding
can only be maintained by agreeing with anthropogenic global warming. I
think a recent post to this list pointed out that you can get modest
cash for simply offering opinions that criticize the majority view.
Imagine what you could get paid for producing peer-reviewed science
challenging that view. So if the opposing viewpoint can easily be
funded, why do so few peer-reviewed articles go against the consensus
viewpoint? I guess the only other explanation would be that all the
"peers" that do the reviewing are so biased and self-serving that they
won't allow any of those articles to reach the journals. This huge
conspiracy also seems absurd.

So, can the claim really be made that funding is the "real" reason for
the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change? For those who
have posted that they have friends or colleagues who make convincing
arguments against anthropogenic climate change, I would ask why we have
not seen those arguments in peer-reviewed journals? The lack of this
kind of publication leaves me with the impression that while these
arguments may sound good, they don't hold scientific water.

It may be cynical to think this way, but if the climate scientists come out
with 'this all is basically natural variation with too many unmeasurable
variables for us to adequately model and predict', then they would basically
be out of a job. I'm not actually accusing the group of such ( I think
some people are), but it does sow a seed of doubt in there.

I don't actually know how much of the dissenting view has been published (I
don't think it is really zero) but (again being cynical) who are the peers
that would review such work? Those who are firmly on the human-induced
warming band wagon?

If I understand the really vocal skeptics, one aspect that it often brought
up is whether or not these models being run now can retroactively 'predict'
other major climate shifts for which we have sufficient historical or
geological data. Can any of the models explain why Greenland WAS green for
the first Viking settlers or why Northern Africa became a desert in the not
so ancient past?

Rick