All Climatologists Aren't Scientists

The London Telegraph ^ | 10/21/07 | ReasonMcLucus

[kathsua]

Some people seem to believe that anyone who studies some physical phenomenon

is a scientist and that anything a "scientist" say is to be accepted as if the "scientist" was a priest.

J. Robert Oppenheimer once remarked "There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors"

Empirical scientists use repeated observations and experimentation to study physical phenomena. Scientists attempt to provide approximate explanations for phenomena. Exact explanations may not be possible, that is unless someone can come up with the holy grail of physics the Unified Field Theorem..

Real scientists don't expect to have their explanations automatically accepted. They expect to have to prove what they say is valid by conducting experiments and providing evidence. They accept the existence of physcial "laws" which control and limit physical phenomena. They accept concepts like those in quantum physics even if they don't seem to make sense if there is evidence that they do. Niels Bohr "And anyone who thinks they can talk about quantum theory without feeling dizzy hasn't yet understood the first thing about it."

Some climatologists aren't acting like empirical scientists. For example, they claim the existence of things like greenhouse gases that are not consistent with established physics such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (see the previous post). Religious figures sometimes claim that physical laws can be ignored, but they typicallly suggest that a diety can perform supernatural feats.

Scientists recognize that concepts come and go. Physicists have been debating whether light is a wave or a particle for two centuries. Each side has dominated at one time or another. They may think that those who disagree with them are misguided, but they don't call the members of the other side names like "denier" or "contrarian" like the believers in greenhouse gases do. These people who use such terms use them in the same manner religious figures use the terms 'heretic" and "infidel".

The greenhouse gas believers believe that consensus is more important than evidence. Real scientists recognize that everyone can be wrong as 19th Century scientists were when they believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter . Scientists don't vote on which explanation is the best. They develop evidence through experimentation and observation. Real scientists recognize that mathematical explanations are often complex and that throwing a bunch of numbers together and averaging them isn't likely to produce any meaningful result. Greenhouse gas believers think they can average global temperatures and get an exact explanation of the climate of every place on earth.

the climatologists who claim to believe in greenhouse gases do not behave like scientists and thus are not scientists.

A real scientist wouldn't provide vague explanations like "global warming is going to cause this or that". A real scientist would give specific explanations for climate in each area of the globe. The greenhouse gas believers use the term "global warming" as if it were some type of deity. If the weather is colder or warmer than usual the answer is the same "global warming did it."

[kathsua]

The whole thing about greenhouse gases has always sounded a lot like magic -- maybe climatologists are magicians instead of scientists.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Most “scientists” are bottle washers and button sorters.
***
Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields.
But experts often think so.
The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.

Both by LAZARUS LONG

[ApplegateRanch]

Asimov: Foundation Trilogy

[speaker, government 'scientist' seated in easy chair] (paraphrase):

I am obviously researching the problem, like any reasonable scientist. I read what the Great Experts had to say about the question, then I decide which one had the most cogent argument.

You certainly aren't suggesting that one should dirty their hands doing experiments that have already been done long ago, are you? What kind of 'science' would that be?

[phs3]

ping

[Cacique]

btt

[Marie]

Here's a website that has quite a bit of info regarding in *improper* methods used to gather temperature data.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/climate_change/

[Marie]

http://surfacestations.org/

Here's another.

Long story short, if you place the sensors near (say) an air conditioning unit, it will show a spike. Hundreds of these sensors are recording faulty information and *that* information is feeding the global warming frenzy.

[Marie]

Here's an interesting quote:

If a [weather station] site is initially chosen because it meets all the qualifications for observing temperature, there is little about the site that could change to develop a cool bias. Almost all the changes will result in a warming trend from the original, ideal setting.

Natural changes such as the growth of trees and shrubs, reduce the clear sky radiation, resulting in a warming trend. Man made changes, such as increased building and paving in and around the site, also results in a warming trend that is unrelated to any potential climate change. Finally, deterioration of the shelter housing the instruments also leads to an artificial warming.

Any correction of these potential warming factors simply returns the site to its initial, ideal state. The only way to get an artificial cooling is to start with a less than ideal setting for recording air temperature and improve it. While this may have happened in a few locations, it is obvious that the gradual degradation of recording sites is the norm.

The calculations of the temperature increase due to increasing CO2 are theory, which can only be verified with actual, accurate data. Those who claim that the accuracy of the data is not relevant are, in effect, defending a theory against reality, which is faith, not science.

I know that supporters of the AGW theory get very upset when they are accused of behaving in a religious fashion, instead of behaving like scientists. To avoid this, I suggest they start behaving like scientists and support the effort to obtain the best data possible.

Found here: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/climate_change/

[BIGLOOK]

Scientific inquiry =

I suspect some missed that class.

[ApplegateRanch]

Thanks; I knew the first one, but not the second.

Yet, the True Believers cry foul, when confronted with these data.

Here is one of my favorites:

Climate History

[steelyourfaith]

AGW™ ping

[Fresh Wind]

[FairWitness]

Exact explanations may not be possible, that is unless someone can come up with the holy grail of physics the Unified Field Theorem.

Will a Unified Field Theorem lead to an explanation of how life originated? Not trying to be a smart alec; just a biochemist with limited theoretical physics background asking a serious question.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Omg.

*I* am a scientist. I’m a physicist (of a sort) and I do scientific work. Or used to. But, I’m not a climatologist. I am however, trained in meteorology. So... am I an expert on the climate? Yep, it’s currently chilly outside, and we had snow on sunday. The climate was COLD that day. :)

This some kind of leftist joke now, trying to explain that not everyone “who is a climatologist” is a scientist thus we must reexamine all those people who don’t believe in the global warming crap, right?

[kathsua]

Thanks.