Climate science should abandon the cudgel and present evidence

Further to Are you a scientist?:

Someone the other day was telling me I shouldn’t have criticised the VUW lecture on the basis of a brochure—she said I should wait to hear the lecture first. She made a good point, but she knows nothing (because the TV news never mentions it) of the unbelievable saga of flawed “climate” papers presenting patronising descriptions of the inadequate mindset of climate sceptics.

Other sciences, when they encounter resistance, intensify their efforts to present evidence and describe the arguments, in an attempt to persuade the sceptical of the rightness of their case. Climate science alone takes a cudgel to its critics by questioning their mental balance.

It’s hard to imagine another tactic they might employ that would more firmly cement opinion against it.

Many of us long for the day when sensible, unbiased heads (and there must be many in their ranks, if for now they’re mistaken or deceived) take the reins, abandon obfuscation, talk sense to their critics, and change conclusions that appear mistaken.

Thus might climatology return to its roots and rebuild a science of immense promise and value.

8 Thoughts on “Climate science should abandon the cudgel and present evidence

  1. Simon on June 28, 2015 at 8:53 pm said:

    You have to admit though that there are a lot of crazies who really believe that global warming is part of a global conspiracy where scientists actively manipulate data and alter findings to maintain the ‘lie’.

  2. Gary Kerkin on June 28, 2015 at 9:05 pm said:

    Simon, they are not all “crazies”, or have the lessons of Climategate been forgotten? I have little doubt that some information has been manipulated, omitted, or hidden. There are a variety of reasons for this not the least of which is a genuine belief by some that disastrous change is underway and that “ends justify the means” to bring it to public awareness. But there are others who have found it to be a useful income to promote the abuse of information we have observed. The name Gore springs to mind. You will recall that a Court in England ordered that the many errors in “An Inconvenient Truth” had to be presented when the video was viewed in schools. It is a sad reflection on the state of climate science.

  3. Simon:

    ‘You have to admit though that there are a lot of crazies who really believe that global warming is part of a global conspiracy where scientists actively manipulate data and alter findings to maintain the ‘lie’.’

    Not as many crazies as those who believe the anthropogenic global warming theory is still viable after the positive feedback from water vapour component has been empirically falsified by both radiosondes and satellite records. You know, the positive feedback the IPCC says should form 50% of the projected warming in the failed global climate models. I wonder why they would ignore such a thing, it only forms half of the theory after all. Maybe they just haven’t noticed, but I wonder if they would notice if the empirical evidence pointed the other way.

  4. Richard Treadgold on June 28, 2015 at 10:44 pm said:

    Simon,

    “You have to admit though that there are a lot of crazies…”

    I must admit nothing of the sort, since in calling them crazies you question their mental balance—illustrates my point, thanks. Present the evidence for dangerous man-made global warming.

  5. TinyCO2 on June 29, 2015 at 12:09 am said:

    Hear hear.

    Bill Nye has recently typified exactly what’s wrong with explaining climate science, by presenting it in emojis. NO, just NO!. Nobody needs the rough concepts outlined for them any more. WE KNOW. What we don’t necessarily do is accept it. Not believing something very complicated and hard to prove is not denial, it’s a lack of evidence. Repeating the same lack of evidence in simpler and simpler terms does not make it more convincing, just the opposite. Insulting sceptics, trying to bully them into submission or then threatening them, makes them convinced that the simple explanations are the best believers can present and strengthens their convictions that CAGW is at least partly fictional.

  6. Andy on June 29, 2015 at 9:10 am said:

    I’m sure it doesn’t require a global conspiracy for scientists to fiddle data, even unintentionally

    The concept of “noble cause corruption” is pretty well established.

  7. Andy on June 30, 2015 at 3:03 pm said:

    Those in Wellington can attend James Renwick’s inaugural lecture tonight (Tuesday)
    http://www.victoria.ac.nz/events/2015/06/inaugural-lectureprofessor-james-renwick

  8. Mike Jowsey on June 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm said:

    Simon, you have to admit though that there are a lot of crazies in your camp who believe in the “Big Oil” conspiracy and the “Corrupted Governments” conspiracy. Have you been drinking the Lewandowsky koolaid?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation