Re: [Phys-L] "Climate science is not settled"

[Ze'ev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org>]

I avoided barging in, not wanting to add fuel to the fire and hoping 
that the non-scientific propaganda here will die out. Yet the latest 
salvo of inane excuse forces me to react. I will try to make it brief.

1. The excuse that "no science is truly settled" is precisely that -- an 
excuse. There is a big difference between some *details* of a theory 
being unclear, and having essentially ALL existing climate models unable 
to accommodate the 15+ years temperature hiatus. Many people here -- 
correctly -- poke fun at people arguing that "evolution is just a 
theory" because -- correctly again -- essentially everything of 
explanatory nature in science is "just a theory." Yet here they seem 
happy to engage in an identical linguistic charade from the other 
direction ... "nothing is settled." I call it rubbish and deceit.

Koonin clearly writes: 'They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" 
by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence 
in the computer projections.' One wouldn't know it from reading the 
responses here.

2. The pretense that since almost everyone agrees that human-generated 
CO2 causes *some* amount of additional warming, the precautionary 
principle implies that we'd better do *something* and the sooner the 
better, almost independent of the cost.

This is wrong-headed simply because if the natural climate variability 
is much higher than the GHG-induced one, not only we have no chance of 
significantly affecting the climate, but we even have no idea of its 
*direction of temperature change*, since it is clear now that NO current 
climate model reflects the empirical reality. In other words, it may 
well be that the world is heading towards global cooling and reducing 
CO2 will actually acerbate this change. The fact that we poorly 
understand and model cloud cover formation and oceans' role -- that are 
responsible easily for over 90% of earth temperature -- is not a side 
issue. Koonin acknowledges this, yet the regular zealots here just gloss 
over it.

3. Finally, Koonin's "That uncertainty need not be an excuse for 
inaction" is taken here as a justification for continuing the political 
push that we have seen for the last decades. "[A]ccelerating the 
development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective 
energy-efficiency measures" does not mean imposing harsh carbon taxation 
and pushing for low-emission technologies whatever their costs, except 
in the minds of bigots. It is a call for more thoughtful R&D rather than 
for mindless and expensive panic and taxation.

Koonin -- correctly -- ends with this: "The political and diplomatic 
spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and 
misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to 
advance that effort."

He is right. The discussion is, and should be, a political one, and 
pretending -- here and elsewhere -- that climate science is mature 
enough, and unequivocal enough, to drive "objectively and unequivocally" 
to particular policies is pseudo-scientific charlatanism.

In that spirit ... http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Ze'ev

On 10/4/2014 8:03 AM, Richard Tarara wrote:
> Having just used the 2000 video from NOVA/FRONTLINE, "What's Up with 
> the Weather" as I have for the past 14 years in my energy class, let 
> me offer the final comments of three of the participants that I think 
> relate to this thread.
...