Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
This is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical
analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (Chair of the School of
EarthandAtmosphericSciencesattheGeorgiaInstituteofTechnology),SteveMcIntyre(a
Canadiangeologist-statistician), andbloggerWillisEschenbachcometomind.Thesethree
in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players
in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the
scientifically-inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that
of other sceptics on the web, is well on the way to becoming a practical and stringent
substitute for peer review.
Once upon a time we were led to believe that the road to fame and fortune within
science was to produce new ideas that challenged accepted belief. Preferably, those new
ideas would lead to tangible benefits for society. But irrespective of the benefit side
of things, the practical basis of all research was to be openly sceptical about
everything—particularly about one's own theories, and particularly about any new theory
thathadsomevagueconnectiontopoliticallycorrectideasoftheday.Conscious,deliberate
and obvious scepticism was regarded as essential to maintaining some sort of immunity
from the human failing of seeing what one wants to see rather than what is real. Good
scientific practice demanded at the very least that one should present the evidence against
a new theory at the same time as the evidence for it.
It seems that science is not what it used to be. In those parts of it that bear upon the
politically correct, sceptics are frowned upon, given nasty names, and ultimately may have
their reputations burned at the stake. Certainly in the field of climate change, one could
perhapsbeforgivenforthinkingthatadvocacyforthecausetrumpstheneedforscepticism
on any day of the week. This is no small problem in the grand scheme of things, because
the whole issue of climate change has lots to be sceptical about.
The take-home message is that there is more than enough uncertainty associated
with forecasting climate to allow normal human beings to be reasonably hopeful that
global warming might not be as bad as is currently touted. Climate scientists, and indeed
scientistsingeneral,arenotsolucky.Largelyasaconsequenceoftheirdecisiontoinsulate
themselvesfromscepticalopinion,theyhavealottoloseiftimeshouldprovethemwrong.
