Settled Science...

The term “settled science” appears in the IPCC reports and has become a key catch-phrase in the AGW debates.  The basic notion put forth by AGW proponents is that the (alleged) consensus of “professional climatologists” must be true, as the magnitude of the consensus indicates that all scientific debate on the topic has been “settled”.  Ergo, to all skeptics, they say STFU.

Well, anyone even modestly acquainted with the history of science knows that there are many, many examples of “settled science” (using the notion described above to define the term) that turned out later to be bogus.  One of my favorite examples is from geology, where in my lifetime the theory of plate tectonics completely overturned the “settled science” of stationary continents. 

This morning I came across a delightful list of such examples.  Many of the entries were reminders for me, such as the relatively recent discovery that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria (but the previous “settled science” attributed them to stress).  Many other entries were entirely new to me.  The simple existence of this (eminently verifiable) list is a wonderful refutation of the AGW proponents notion of “settled science” – and a reminder of the permanent importance of skepticism to science...

Climate Change Skeptics: A Good Introduction...

Warren Meyer (of CoyoteBlog) has a column in Forbes that provides an excellent introduction into the skeptics view of current climate science.  A sample:

Skeptics, however, point out that the computer models were built by scientists who have only a fragmented, immature understanding of complex climate systems. Moreover, these scientists approached the models with the pre-conceived notion that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures, and so it is unsurprising that their models would show CO2 as the dominant factor.

In fact, the period 1978 to 1998 featured a number of other suspects that should have been considered as potentially contributing to warming. For example, the warm phase of several critical ocean cycles that have a big effect on surface temperatures, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, coincided with this period. Further, the second half of the 20th century saw far greater solar activity, as measured by sunspot numbers, than the first half of the century. Neither ocean cycles nor solar effects, nor a myriad of other factors we probably don’t even know enough to name, were built into the models. Even man’s changing land use has an effect on measured temperatures, as survey efforts have shown urban areas, which have higher temperatures than surrounding rural locations, expanding around our temperature measurement points and biasing measured temperatures upwards.

But go read the whole thing!

On Skepticism...

Reader and friend Doug W. passes along this link to a lecture at Cal Tech by Michael Crichton.  The lecture covers a range of issues, but largely it's an energetic defense of AGW skepticism – and the speech was given almost six years ago!  Here's an excerpt on the reliance of AGW science on computer modeling:

To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model."

But now, large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data.

As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well.

Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model-makers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Anyone who invokes Richard Feymann has my ear <smile>.

Go read the whole thing – it's still fresh and relevant after six years...