Against Lysenkoism - or Group-Think?
I sent this letter to Books & Culture after a reviewer referred to climate-change skepticism as "Lysenkoism."
Bill McKibben's review of David Archer's The Global Carbon Cycle suffers from three errors that have plagued climate-change advocacy since the advent of the debate. First is his emphasis on "consensus" - science is not done by consensus, but by experimental evidence and logical proof. The "scientific consensus" has often been proven wrong, by experimentation, on significant questions. Second is the trust in computer models simply because they fit the past data. Given any set of data points in any shape or pattern, I can construct a curve through those points and then describe it with an equation. That does not mean that I actually understand the system in question! The only worthwhile test of a model is it's ability to predict future results, and not one climate model has succeeded in accurately predicting the weather. Third is the omission of stubborn facts, such as: the vast majority of the rise in global temperatures occurred before 1945, yet the vast majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 occurred after 1945. Climate-change believers ought to have either the courage to address such facts, or the humility to admit that they don't fully understand the CO2/temperature relationship.
Bill McKibben's review of David Archer's The Global Carbon Cycle suffers from three errors that have plagued climate-change advocacy since the advent of the debate. First is his emphasis on "consensus" - science is not done by consensus, but by experimental evidence and logical proof. The "scientific consensus" has often been proven wrong, by experimentation, on significant questions. Second is the trust in computer models simply because they fit the past data. Given any set of data points in any shape or pattern, I can construct a curve through those points and then describe it with an equation. That does not mean that I actually understand the system in question! The only worthwhile test of a model is it's ability to predict future results, and not one climate model has succeeded in accurately predicting the weather. Third is the omission of stubborn facts, such as: the vast majority of the rise in global temperatures occurred before 1945, yet the vast majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 occurred after 1945. Climate-change believers ought to have either the courage to address such facts, or the humility to admit that they don't fully understand the CO2/temperature relationship.
posted by Scott M Roney | 10:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home