Climate Science Is Embattled
According to the Writer’s Almanac, last Saturday was:
…the birthday of nonfiction author Bill Bryson who published in 2010, “Seeing Further: The Story of Science, Discovery, and the Genius of the Royal Society,” a collection of articles and essays celebrating the Royal Society‘s 350th anniversary. Bryson has described himself as a “cheerleader for science,” and told The New Statesman: “Science has been quite embattled. It’s the most important thing there is. An arts graduate is not going to fix global warming. They may do other valuable things, but they are not going to fix the planet, or cure cancer, or get rid of malaria.”
Thanks for this candor and the clarity of thought coming from the UK; I wish it were more generally available over here.
Seriously though, shouldn’t we all be cheerleaders for science?
Global climate change deniers tell us that our many thousands of scientists who have spent their lives in this field have essentially been bribed or otherwise forced to accept a theory that they know to be false, but they go along so as to continue to receive more money for their research. But isn’t this a bit hard to believe? Thousands of university professors (a small group of whom I know personally and deeply respect) are “on the take?” They’ve sold their intellectual integrity to make a few bucks, perpetrating what they know to be a hoax?
Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me.
I would say that the truth is quite the reverse.
Those who want to challenge climate change are in many cases funding research the sole purpose of which is to protect their existing financial interests – why else would fossil fuel companies be so prominent in funding the small number of researchers who deny anthropomorphic climate change? (The tobacco companies employed a similar tactic several decades back).
Whilst I admit that it is very difficult to eliminate observer bias entirely, the scientific process is about offering up a hypothesis which appears to fit the facts and then testing that hypothesis by gathering data from natural processes or carrying out experiments to test the validity of the hypothesis. A good scientist accepts when their hypothesis does not fit the facts and adjusts and refines the hypothesis to better fit the available data. Some errors creep through, but by and large, these are picked up at a later date and challenged when other scientists attempt to corroborate their data and are unable to do so.
Anyone who approaches a scientific hypothesis with the attitude that supportive data is to be embraced without regard for context whilst contradictory data is to be buried and forgotten is not a scientist, but a political lobbyist masquerading as a scientist.
One such example of out of context supportive data is the case for serious health concerns around infrasound from wind turbines. To the best of my knowledge, the evidence cited to support this hypothesis relates to very high intensity infrasound which has been shown to cause problems. What is not said, is that the intensity of of infrasound cited is 1 million times greater than what is known to be given off by wind turbines! (You might as well say that because a jet engine in close proximity will damage your hearing, that a normal conversation will have the same effect)
Such an unscientific process should be regarded as a form of fraud – subject to sanction should such selective presentation of data be uncovered. If an academic carries out such a fraud, they should be removed from their academic position and any thesis they present should be considered invalid. An institution deliberately sanctioning or being set up for such a fraudulent purpose should be struck off and not considered as a legitimate scientific institution. This applies regardless of the scientific discipline being studied.