I happened to read an article at Real Clear Science An Inconvenient Truth About ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Eric Merkley & Dominik Stecula August 18, 2017. The article itself is of middling interest, mainly being a lament that Al Gore became the leading promoter of public awareness about the dangers of global warming. The authors contend that Republicans were predetermined to reject claims from such a high-profile liberal Democrat.
It is not new nor interesting to hear warmists diss skeptics as simplistic right-wingers having a knee jerk reaction to global warming claims. But reading the comment thread was illuminating and undercut the presumptions of the article. Instead of pointing to all the leftist knee jerkers swearing allegiance to climatism, posts by several scientists made comments hitting the credibility problem at its core.
Two comments reprinted below deserve a wide audience for expressing what many think but have not expressed so clearly.
I spent an entire career in applied sciences and know the difference between true science and lesser areas of study. Climatology is one of the latter. It is mostly a field of historical trend analysis trying desperately to be a field of trend prediction (and doing very poorly at that).
Climatologists have done themselves a disservice by calling themselves scientists, since by doing so we expect them to use the scientific method. The use of scientific method will always be impossible in climatology, since the most important step in the SM is experimentation to prove the hypothesis. And experimentation is impossible when we can’t perform a laboratory equivalent of the earth’s climate over centuries in a laboratory experiment.
Secondarily, science requires that we gather data to laboratory accuracy levels which again is impossible with haphazard worldwide thermometer measurements originally meant to measure weather at casual levels of accuracy and casual levels of repeatability.
@Dan Ashley · Northcentral University
Dan Ashley here. PhD statistics, PhD Business.
I am not a climate, environment, geology, weather, or physics expert. However, I am an expert on statistics. So, I recognize bad statistical analysis when I see it. There are quite a few problems with the use of statistics within the global warming debate. The use of Gaussian statistics is the first error. In his first movie Gore used a linear regression of CO2 and temperature. If he had done the same regression using the number of zoos in the world, or the worldwide use of atomic energy, or sunspots, he would have the same result. A linear regression by itself proves nothing.
The theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been proven correct in a small greenhouse only. As a matter of fact, plants like higher CO2 and it is frequently pumped into greenhouses because of that. There has never been a definitive experiment regarding CO2, at or near the concentrations in our atmosphere. This theory actually has much less statistical support than the conspiracy theories regarding JFK’s assassination.
Gaussian statistics REQUIRE the events being published to be both independent and random. The temperatures experienced in one part of the world are dependent on temperatures in other locales. The readings are not independent. A better statistical method would be Mandlebroten (fractal). Mandlebroten statistics are not merely “fat tailed” statistics.
A more problematic issue with the data is that it has been adjusted. Data adjustments are frequently needed –for example, if a measuring device fails. However 100% of the data adjustments used are in favor of proving global warming. 100%. Not 100% minus one adjustment. Not nearly 100%. 100% –that is ALL– of the adjustments were in one direction only. Any student that put data like that in a PHD dissertation would never receive a doctoral degree.
One study published showed parts of the Earth where warming was occuring faster than other parts of the globe. The study claimed to be of data solely from satellites. The study identified several areas (Gambia for one) which have greater warming than other areas. Unfortunately, in three of those areas there have been no climate satellite observations for years.
The statements that claim “less arctic ice in recorded history” are equally spurious. We started gathering data on that in 1957 with the first satellite fly overs. On this issue “recorded history” is a very short time period.
Some geologist friends told me that a significant amount of Earth’s heat comes from the hot Earth’s core. They further stated that they do not know what percentage of heat that is. They do know it is probably over 20% and probably less than 70%. Whereas either of those extremes seems unlikely to me, remember that I am not a geologist.
As to rising oceans, that should be measured accurately. Measuring it with a stick stuck in the sand is inappropriate. Geologists tell me that the land is shifting and moving. Measuring it against the gravitational center of the Earth is the only accurate way. However, we do not know how to do that. As a matter of fact, we don’t know precisely where the gravitational center of the Earth is. (Any physicists around that want to explain the two body and the three body problem as it relates to the Earth, Moon, and Sun, please do so.
So, according to climate scientists the world is warming up. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. However, they have been unable to support their thesis via the use of statistics.
I personally see no reason to disassemble the world’s economic systems over an unproven, and somewhat implausible theory.
The scientific claims made in Gore’s movies do not stand up to scrutiny. Changing the salesman is not going to make the pitch any more believable.