by Ted Cooper I count Bob Carter as a personal friend and got a little emotional when I read Brian Voth’s first paragraph in his letter, “Climate action research,” printed May 21. Voth has abandoned the scientific for the political arena.
Carter’s emphasis is data driven, and he has compared the theoretical computer simulations, or scenarios, with the real world of “hands-on measurement,” and the models have failed. The charge that he is not a climate scientist is a not too subtle attempt to censor debate à la the “Climategate” fiasco.
Carter would not claim to be an expert across the broad spectrum of climate science as he has stated “the complexity of the climate system is so great, encompassing as it probably does many dozens of subdisciplines and exercising an influence on all life on our planet, that no such person as a ‘climate expert’ actually exists.”
Roy Spencer, on the other hand, with colleague John Christy, were the first two scientists to develop a method for getting temperatures from satellites, and they won NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society’s “Special Award” for their work.
Both are not exactly scientific lightweights.
I feel I need to remind Voth that science advances through hypotheses and testing of the results against real world observation—not through opinion surveys or personalities. The whole process is data driven. Conclusions are not reached through answering surveys, but by replicable experimentation. The 97 per cent consensus study is still mired in controversy with statistical errors and flawed sampling.
All the predicted “tipping points” have come and gone. World ice coverage is increasing. Polar bears are doing fine. Glaciers grow and retreat. The Himalayan glaciers are not disappearing.
The question to be asked in every disaster prediction: “Is this an interpretation of a computer simulation—a scenario—or is it based on actual observations—that is, empirical science?”
The granddaddy of them all is in the failure of computer simulations to predict global temperatures. Temperatures have failed to rise over the last 16 to 17 years despite the steady climb of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Obviously, some other factor(s) is involved. We’ve probably underestimated the role of Mother Nature in an effort to appear to be in charge. King Canute demonstrated this fallacy and acknowledged his subservient role in the world.
Claims that there is a consensus that dangerous anthropogenic global warming is occurring are more a reflection of a political agenda than a reflection of scientific knowledge.
Study the geological record. Change is the name of the game, and note well that I am not offering any excuses not to practice diligent stewardship over the environment. That is axiomatic.
Skepticism is not a disease. Scientists schooled in the scientific method are trained to be skeptics. It’s part and parcel of the scientific endeavour.
Richard Feynman stated very accurately this is how science works: “1. guess; 2. compute consequences; 3. compare to actual observations. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That simple statement is the key to science...There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.”
Science is not about character assassination, but about observable and demonstrable data.
Finally, there is one survey I do like. Professor Dan Kahan of Yale Law School has determined that skeptics are smarter than alarmists.
Ted Cooper, originally from Ontario, is a 42-year resident of Powell River.
