Published by admin on 07 Aug 2010 at 05:24 pm
Frank J. Tipler on “cargo cult” climate science
Physicist Frank J. Tipler writes on the definition of “science” by the great physicist Richard P. Feynman–a definition that, alas, escapes most climate scientists. Feynman’s essay is available online in Google Book’s “preview” of his book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. “What Is Science” is on page 177; “Cargo Cult Science” is on page 205.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?” Feynman emphasized this definition by repeating it in a stand-alone sentence in extra large typeface in his article.
Immediately after his definition of science, Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.”
And I say, Amen. Notice that “you” is the average person. You have the right to hear the evidence, and you have the right to judge whether the evidence supports the conclusion. We now use the phrase “scientific consensus,” or “peer review,” rather than “science has shown.” By whatever name, the idea is balderdash. Feynman was absolutely correct.
When the attorney general of Virginia sued to force Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to provide the raw data he used, and the complete computer program used to analyze the data, so that “you” could decide, the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia (where Mann was a professor at the time he defended the hockey stick) declared this request — Feynman’s request — to be an outrage. You peons, the Faculty Senate decreed, must simply accept the conclusions of any “scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards.” Feynman’s — and the attorney general’s and my own and other scientists’ — request for the raw data, so we can “judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at,” would, according to the Faculty Senate, “send a chilling message to scientists … and indeed scholars in any discipline.”
To read the whole article from Pajamas Media, click here.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. on 08 Aug 2010 at 3:05 pm #
Making ones data and methods fully accessible to others is a fundamental tenet of the Scientific Method. It is only since the advent of PNS (post normal science) and its associated foolishness that we see members of the science community acting in unscientific ways. In the example of Dr. Mann the problem is more complicated. First and most important is the understanding of what science is in the first place. To long for this comment but we can say clearly what it is not. It is not the results of models that are unable to do what they claim to do. It is not playing games with data in an attempt to verify one or more hypothesis. Science falsifies, the method can not prove them. Since Dr. Mann’s work does not meet the standards of the scientific method, it could be argued it is not science at all. In this case it would need some other name. Propaganda comes to mind but other terms are also possible. I see no requirement in the scientific method and its associated philosophy for the propagandist “to show his work”.
This kind of general behavior is highly detrimental to a reasoned and civil public discourse. It gives all scientists a reputation stain as well.
Drew Snider on 19 Sep 2010 at 8:41 am #
Reading some of your postings about “peer review” reminds me of the late Spike Milligan’s novel, “Puckoon”, in which he describes a soldier being court-martialled for desertion. The soldier speaks up and says, “the law states I’m entitled to a jury of my peers! I demand to be tried by cowards!”
I have been trying to find an answer to a key question that seems to be pushed to one side, and maybe you can point me in the right direction (I was looking for a “contact” section to ask this question directly, but no joy). While there’s a lot of discussion on human-induced global warming, what would the overall effect be of humans following every solution promoted? In other words, how much difference will it make to the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Does the amount of CO2 produced by humans push the ecosystem to a tipping point and would a certain reduction somehow claw the planet back from the brink?
admin on 19 Sep 2010 at 12:11 pm #
Drew,
As far as I can tell after more than two years of research, the answer is: nothing we do will make very much difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Andrew Weaver writes, in his book Keeping Our Cool, “On Kyoto, I agree wholeheartedly, as would almost anyone in the scientific community, that it will have zero effect on global warming.” (page 58).
If we followed every “solution” proposed? Weaver again: “Suppose every country that actually signed Kyoto ratifies it and meets their target, including the U.S., but goes no further. That 2.08 degree [Celsius] warming becomes 2.0 degrees and the sea level rises 48.5 cm [by 2100]. Suppose we all reduce our emissions by another one per cent a year, after the Kyoto targets are reached. The Earth still warms by 1.8 degrees and sea levels rise 45.5 cm. So there is an element of ‘We’re hooped anyway’ here.” (“The science tells the story.” The (Univ of Victoria) Ring, Jan. 23, 2003.)
Will CO2 emissions produce a “tipping point”? Maybe. Or maybe not. We don’t know, and any claims that “the science is settled” are complete nonsense, aimed at furthering a political agenda while ignoring the uncertainties that all true sciences acknowledge.
Are additions of CO2 dangerous? Highly unlikely, given that, in the geological past, including the recent geological past, CO2 levels were routinely several times higher than today’s without causing “runaway” warming. Chapter 2 of my book gives a lot of detail on this.
Hope this is helpful.
Paul
Steve Kramer on 20 Sep 2010 at 7:55 am #
Hello, Paul.
Great site with many fine references. I too am quite skeptical of the notion of anthropomorphic global warming and even more irritated at the politics and misleading politicos trumpeting this nonsense.
Recently, U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said the amount of CO2 has “increased 33%” from some pre-Apocalyptic point. But the “raw data” is much more telling — and far less ominous. The measure: from 300 parts per million to 400 ppm. To put that in perspective, that’s like going from 300 one-inch squares inside a larger square 83 FEET on a side to 400 one-inch squares. An absolutely minute change.
More to the point, though, is that nature is responding. Forests are growing faster. Food is growing faster. And in the process, more CO2 is being converted during photosynthesis.
Keep up the good work! The truth WILL out!