A mechanical engineer tries to use commonsense to discredit climate skepticism
His name is Rich Brager. His effort is below and shows how shallow his understanding of the issues is.
My first smile was his credulous belief that scientific fraud is "pretty rare". I wonder how he explains that in both psychology and medicine up to two thirds of all findings have recently been found to be unreplicable? The level of fraud may vary but its frequency shows that treating scientists as an authority is naive. The only authority is the facts.
And his idea of how scientists work is also idealized. He says:
"They learn by failure. They formulate new ideas based on their previous test results. They hone and fine tune their ideas until they can achieve success"
But Warmists don't do that. They have a theory they stick to come hell or high water. Take their basic theory that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 lead to increasing global temperatures. So from 1945 t0 1975 when CO2 levels rose strongly, global temperatures rose strongly too. Right? But they didn't. They were effectively static for all of those 30 years. Some people call it the "long hiatus". So how do warmists explain that stark contradiction of their theory? They don't. They just mumble "special factors" and go on as if nothing to disturb their theory had happened.
Mr Brager goes on to compare the science that goes into his beloved motor cars with climate science and says that because motor cars work well, climate science must be right too. That is a rather large non-sequitur for starters but its basic error is to assume that climate scientists proceed the way other scientists do. They don't. I have just pointed out an example of that but let me give another one:
It is a normal scientific courtesy for scientists to make their raw data available to other scientists so other scientists can re-analyse it and (hopefully) show that the analyses done by the original author were correct and adequate. New analyses could even reveal new insights not picked up by the original author.
But Warmists NEVER do that. They refuse point blank to make their data available to others. That immediately evokes supicion that their data may not show what they say it shows. And on one occasion when some very important data was left lying around where skeptics could access and analyse it, the whole "hockeystick" edifice built on it collapsed. They have good reasons to hide their data.
Mr Brager clearly needs to do some reading. He could start by googling "unreplicable findings"
Science deniers seem to be everywhere. You can read about them in the papers virtually every day. They are in the news all the time. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has assigned a disproportionate number of jobs requiring scientific knowledge to science deniers. Very sad, very dangerous.
What are they denying? The topics include climate change, evolution, vaccination as well as a number of other topics. So why are the deniers deniers? Of course, there is no single reason. They often cite instances where scientists were fraudulent with their scientific information. Since scientists are also human, this does happen sometimes but fortunately, it is pretty rare.
Sometimes they say that the scientists have just made errors in their scientific analysis. This can also happen, but many non-scientists just don’t really understand how science works. Scientists learn by pushing the envelope of knowledge and by testing their ideas. They learn by failure. They formulate new ideas based on their previous test results. They hone and fine tune their ideas until they can achieve success.
I think many science deniers are very selective in their denials, almost hypocritical. They agree with and love science every time they go to their garage and start their modern car. The science that goes into designing and manufacturing a modern car is borderline unbelievable. You name it, it is there: material science, chemistry, thermodynamics, electronics, robotics, anatomy (think driving position, location of controls), physics, etc., etc. And they all work together so seamlessly that you don’t give it another thought while you commute to work.
And you science deniers could care less about the science that goes into your cell phones, GPS’s and microwave ovens. They all work “like magic”, but they are not magic. They are science at work. And work they do.
So do scientists of different stripes (physicists, chemists, weather scientists, biologists, etc.) go about their work in completely different ways?
Although their fields of study may differ wildly, their scientific methods are remarkably the same. They design their tests, gather their data, review their data, rerun tests as necessary, use statistical methods in analyzing their data, search for similar research by others, present their finding to other experts. Final reports are peer reviewed and critiqued. New and amazing findings are made.
So let’s pick on climate change deniers for a second. Do you think climate scientists are dumber than automotive scientists? Do you think their techniques are inferior to cell phone scientists? Or is your own understanding of climate science just not as good as your understanding of how your cell phone works? Or just because your political party needs to support big energy, climate change shouldn’t be real? Or what? Please help me understand.
So you deniers, make sure you have some real good scientific knowledge before you deny. Think about what Isaac Asimov (scientist and science fiction writer) said about anti-intellectualism. He stated that anti-intellectualism is “nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
It is not.
Comment from a reader: This has got to be one of the screwiest posts that I have every read ....and to think it was published by a Mechanical Engineer.
He truly misses a single most important point....the people promoting man-made Global warming have not performed a single scientific experiment that demonstrates that CO2 will cause the temperature of the atmosphere to rise and if one should take a look at the last 50 years a true scientist would conclude that CO2 either has little or no effect.
All that I have seen is the pointing at all kinds of false findings and claiming these to be evidence of global warming.....rising sea levels, glaciers melting, loss of polar ice, polar bear demise, more violent storms, droughts, crop failure, insect migration, disease, correlation of temperature to CO2 concentrations, and on and on.
Any scientist would take a step back at the failure of any of these prediction to come true.