My "One Skeptic's View
In response to this climate-science "exchange" on pages 61-62 of the January/February 2018 issue of
Skeptical Inquirer
|
Editor:The handling of my letter as fodder for an "exchange" on climate-science criticism (January/February 2018, pages 61-62) lacked crucial context. Your introduction neglected to mention that as a CSI* scientific consultant but climate non-expert, I have repeatedly urged Skeptical Inquirer to engage with a politically independent climatologist like Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who eschews bandwagoning in favor of keeping a critical eye on her own field. But rather than inviting Curry to submit an article, speak at CSICON*, or (as I have most strongly advocated) sit for a hard-hitting interview with peers such as the exchange's "two noted scientists and climate experts," they instead were fed one of my other letters like shark bait.
Michael Mann accuses me of the classic logical fallacy of "special pleading" as if my uncontested meteorological points about Sandy and Harvey justify the moniker of "denier." Rather, they were offered because those who mistakenly ascribe the catastrophic destructiveness of those storms to climate change ignore their "special" circumstances. He then asserts that record-high global oceanic temperatures are fostering additional exceptionally strong hurricanes "[as] now, with Irma, [which formed and strengthened over] the open Atlantic.
. . . Perhaps Mr. (he knows I'm a medical doctor) Posner wants to explain that away as a freak chance occurrence too." Well, shark vs. bait isn't exactly a fair fight, so here is what Dr. Curry would tell him (from tinyurl.com/curry-irma):"[Irma] developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic—26.5 C—the rule of thumb is 28.5 C for a major hurricane.. . . So why did Irma develop into a major hurricane? We can't blame 26.5 C temperatures in the mid Atlantic on global warming. The dynamical situation for Irma was unusually favorable. In particular, the wind shear was very weak. Further, the circulation field (e.g., stretching deformation) was very favorable for spinning up this hurricane." And the same page links to the NOAA GFDL (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory) "Global Warming and Hurricanes" page, which states that despite such projections for later in the century, "It is premature to conclude that human activities—and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming—have already had a detectable [i.e., clearly distinguishable from natural variability] impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."In lieu of occupying further valuable space dissecting Mark Boslough's ruminations, I will simply opine that participation in a moral crusade, even one as noble as saving the planet, should not require enucleation of one's critical eye. My essay in the Summer 2013 "Skeptical Briefs" (gpposner.com/skep-view-warming.pdf), as well as the other "Climate Change" entries on the Topic Index page of tampabayskeptics.com, account for everything (to my recollection) that I have had published regarding the issues at hand. Readers can judge for themselves whether my efforts represent close-minded "denial" or open-minded "skepticism."
Gary P. Posner, M.D.
Tampa, Florida*Notes: CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) publishes the bimonthly Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Skeptical Briefs (now discontinued) was its quarterly companion newsletter. CSICON is its annual national conference. Additionally, two links in my 2013 Skeptical Briefs essay no longer function as originally. The Scientific American article on Judith Curry (warts and all) can be found here. The article quoting the IPCC chairman can be found on this archived page.
Reasons for applying critical thinking toward the "scientific consensus" on climate change abound in the writings
of Judith Curry. Though perusal of her entire site is
certainly worthwhile, readers may be particularly interested in the following pages (these introductory page descriptions/links might not be
visible in "mobile friendly" view mode):
- On who Judith Curry is
(in her own words)
Excerpts: "Politically, I'm an independent.
. . . I was a strong [Obama #1] supporter and am on public record as having made campaign contributions (I was much less enthusiastic about Obama #2).. . . I am a social liberal but fiscal conservative.. . . I don't subscribe to any political ideology or anything with an'-ism.' . . . The problem for science is with ideologues.. . . In the climate communication world, it has become very trendy to wear your political ideology on your sleeve.. . . I value being exposed to a range of perspectives — this broadens and sharpens my own thinking.. . . I don't watch cable or network TV [except CNN for election returns].. . . I am assumed by some to be an acolyte of Fox News, since I have been interviewed twice by Tucker Carlson. When I lived in Atlanta, I was very frequently interviewed by CNN.. . . I'm all about opening up the dialogue on climate science and the policy options. I think that the discussion on both has been too narrow, to the detriment of both science and policy." - On
the "settled science" stoking climate alarmism
Excerpt: "The mantra of 'settled science' is belied by the inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific problem, the plethora of agents and processes that influence the global climate, and disagreements among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a "consensus" on the topic of human-caused climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of climate change, and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate, disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed."
- On the origins of the IPCC and manufacturing of the "scientific consensus"
Excerpts: "Scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
. . . Scientific scepticism about AGW was alive and well prior to 1995; took a nose-dive following publication of the [IPCC] Second Assessment Report, and then was was dealt what was hoped to be a fatal blow by the Third Assessment Report and the promotion of the Hockey Stick. A rather flimsy edifice for a convincing, highly-confident attribution of recent warming to humans.. . . One might forgive the IPCC leaders for dealing with new science and a very challenging political situation in 1995 during which they overplayed their hand. However, it is the 3rd Assessment Report where [John] Houghton's shenanigans with the Hockey Stick really reveal what was going on (including selection of recent Ph.D. recipient Michael Mann as lead author when he was not nominated by the U.S. delegation). The Hockey Stick got rid of that 'pesky' detection problem.. . . Imagine how all this would have played out if Pierre Morel or John Zillman had been Chair of WG1, or if Tom Wigley or Tim Barnett or John Christy had been Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 8. And what climate science would look like today." - On Curry's 2017
Congressional testimony
Excerpts: "[P]reparing this testimony
. . . provided me an opportunity to reflect on my writings over the past 7 years and synthesize them into an essay on the philosophy of climate science, including what went wrong and why, and some suggestions for fixing these problems.. . . Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do.. . . I [then] began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC's conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works. I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don't get asked and the investigations that aren't made.. . . As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist*. I've been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.. . . There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.. . . The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Why do scientists disagree about the causes of climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There's disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. There's disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.. . . There are much better ways to assess science for policy makers than a consensus-seeking process that serves to stifle disagreement and debate."*She does not mention his name (Michael Mann) here, but follow link near top of that page to "'Deniers,’ lies and politics," where she discusses this matter in detail.
- On Mark Steyn's book critical of Michael Mann
Curry's conclusion (in part): "I have written many posts about Michael Mann — apart from my own concerns* about the hockey stick.
. . . I am greatly concerned about Mann's bullying behavior inserting itself into the scientific process (collaboration, peer review, public communication). My concerns go beyond the general strategies of adversarial science to what I regard as unethical behavior.. . . Steyn's book reminds everyone of. . . why the public doesn't trust climate scientists and aren't buying their 'consensus.'. . . I hope that everyone will learn that adversarial science as practiced in its pathological form by Michael Mann doesn't 'pay' in the long run."*See "Hiding the Decline" (and note that the link to "Hiding the Decline: Part II" is near top of page, and so on as you view its additional parts/pages)
Note: My own unique review of Steyn's book was rejected for publication by both Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine:
Here is a January 2017 article/interview regarding Curry's retirement from academia ("I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science").
And, again, the Scientific American article from October 2010 on Judith Curry (warts and all) can be found here.