Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"

[marx@phy.ilstu.edu]

On 22 Dec 2010 at 12:41, John Clement wrote:

> ...  Indeed if you were to make the Congress take
> the Lawson test of scientific thinking you might find that only 30% score in
> the formal operational range, and less than 1% understand the statistical
> question.

I think you are being overly generous in your assessment of Congress.

> Models vs theories:
>
> I would say the problem with communication is the idea of a scientific
> theory, vs the conventional "it's just a theory".  So like JD I would use
> the word sparingly and usually only when it is attached historically to a
> name.  A much better word is model because it implies a structure and
> acknowledges that we created it. 

I spend a lot of time in my courses explaining the difference between models and theories.  To me, 
models are competing theoretical frameworks to explain a given phenomena.  The competition is 
played out in laboratories that test model predictions and in the offices of theoreticians that work to 
remove inconsistencies.  Like the Highlander, in the end, there can be only one.  That successful, 
remaining model is the theory.  I explain that a theory is as close to truth as we get in science, but it is 
still subject to further testing and may be altered or thrown away if new information comes to light.

As far the climate science discussion, my research has shown a lot of poor decisions on the part of 
climate scientists in their handling of data and interpreting statistics.  Some have manipulated data and 
outright lied to protect their public story.  I believe it is important to investigate these matters and clean 
up the science so that it can proceed as it should without the strong poitical influences that have taken 
it over during the past decade or so.  As scientists, we should do our jobs as skeptics and peer 
reviewers and not just accept interpretations of the climate scientists as unbiased truth.

I do not see it as McCarthyism if the new Congress does a public investiagation of the climate 
scientists.  I will grant you that it will be political in nature, but we may also see an improvement in the 
long run in the behavior of scientists.