Does it Hurt?
I got an email from a casual correspondent (not anyone I know well) a while back that has me shaking my head. While I haven’t written much about climate change here (even though I’m working on a climate change project for a museum right now), my note about preserving the Earth a few weeks back tripped a breaker in somebody’s mind and the lights went out.
So, the letter began by excoriating scientists who “believe” in global warming. Not even a “Hi, I read your entry and I have a few comments to make” opening. No, this person just plowed right in and began flinging poo. First, the writer listed a series of statements that he/she said were made by proponents of global warming that were (in the letter-writer’s opinion) false and made only to get more funding (the letter-writer’s interpretation). No, the person didn’t say WHY they were false. Apparently it was enough to just get out the world FALSE in big, black letters with lots of exclamation points after it.
The person did send me some links to “research” that he/she said disproved global warming. The first one on the list turned out to be a site that pretty said verbatim what was written in the email to me. At the bottom of the email message, the person suggested that scientists should be more “open to new ideas” and not closed-minded to people who disagree with them.
Okay, so I got the idea that this person doesn’t think that global warming is real. Fair enough — everybody’s entitled to their opinion. But, this person’s opinion wasn’t his/her own. It was basically a rehash of a website that he/she had read (and was graceless enough to point out to me as a “scientific source”). The site misquoted several scientists, actually putting words in their mouths they’d never said. Then it took them to task for what it claimed they said (rather than what they actually said).
And my letter-writer was whining about closed-mindedness on the part of scientists?
It was entertaining for about one minute. But, I have less patience these days with people who don’t use their heads or prefer to let others do their thinking for them, particularly when it comes to discussing science. Let me just say that the human mind is meant to be educated and exercised, not rented out or mismanaged by people whose degrees are in psychoceramics.
Hi, I read your entry and I have a few comments to make…
As a trained meteorologist, astronomer and basic scientist, I have learned many lessons over the 35 years of professional life.
Take what you hear on TV with a grain of salt. It does not matter what the subject is, but if you are being bombarded every day about a specific topic, someone has a vested interest in altering how you think. When someone is trying a little too hard, very suspicious.
When raw data supports a theory, then is no need to use deception to convince people of a specific theory. If deception is being used, be very suspicious.
It may be hard work, but most people never bother to study the raw data. Was it obtained using scientific principles and archived for future analysis? If not archived and available for future scientific research, be very suspicious.
The “peer review” process should be used to insure that the raw data was obtained and analyzed according to scientific principles. If “peer review” uses another motivation, then be very suspicious.
As a meteorologist and astronomer, I have been thrilled with some of the recent basic research, which may link Earth’s climate with Solar magnetic fields and even cosmic radiation.
This is a subject of research where astronomers may contribute with their specialized knowledge.
Hi Steve,
Earth’s climate doesn’t work in a vacuum, that is for sure.
However, the particular “diatribe” I’m referring to (delicately) in my entry is from someone who is convinced that no matter what scientists say, if it doesn’t agree with his/her preconceived notions (or what they’ve read on a crackpot blog), then the scientists must be lying. That’s not honest thinking either.
It may be a bit much to expect casual readers to study data heavily and understand it unless they also know the methodology under which it was taken. Each field has its methodologies, and it’s tough to expect people to know all of them. But there are in most scientific discoveries, enough places to find out the more-or-less unvarnished truth so that one can make a judgment based on facts rather than emotions or misleading statements by deniers or hoaxers.
It’s astonishing how much BS gets put out there by people who want everybody to believe the government is covering up UFOs or “beams from space” or what-not, and I’m always surprised that anybody would actually believe it without checking it out, first. Healthy skepticism is a good hallmark of a scientist, I’ve always thought.
Thanks for your comments!
Question: What scientific studies have ever MEASURED the heating effects of CO2 on Earth’s global temperature?
To my knowledge, this is the only research that has actually measured the Earth’s current CO2 distribution from a satellite.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/
The results were rather interesting and not what most of us would have expected. I had no idea that the Earth was “breathing” like that.
I also find it rather disturbing that the satellite data is not updated with the latest data from this satellite.
Astronomers know how to study this type of raw data, since they do it with remote stars on an almost daily basis.
Like you, I understand the type of “diatribe” which you are talking about. That is fully understood.
What has astounded me, is why astronomners are not getting involved and asking the hard questions about the “global warming” concept.
As astronomers, could we evaluate the raw data and get the same results?
Is both the raw data and software available for others scientists to evaluate?
I have been doing research for so many years now, that some “Red Flags” let me know that something is not quite right. I then start to study the raw data.
However, when I see some outstanding basic research, conducted using honest scientific principles, then they get my respect.
SCIAMACHY got my attention!
Hi Steve,
You raise very good points and I agree that all data needs to be evaluated properly.
Without getting into the global warming debate here (and I’m considering writing a bit more about it in a future blog entry), my intention in this post is really to express frustration and annoyance at people who do NOT even do simple evaluation of information before jumping on a bandwagon or twisting other people’s to make a (questionable) point. It could have been about any science, not just climate science. It could just as easily be said about politics, too. 😉
Your point about astronomers is a good one. However, to understand why they are or are not getting involved in the debate/studies, it might be a good idea to look at how many are actually involved in astmospheric sciences. And then go from there. Not every astronomer is an expert in that area, and it wouldn’t make sense for a cosmologist, for example, to jump in on it. But, that’s an obvious issue.
So, as a mental exercise, how would studying atmospheres of other STARS allow one to make assumptions about Earth’s atmosphere?
I been using my training as meteorology identify the signal contained in the historical climatology records, in an effort to understand the variability of our Sun.
The topic of global warming is not an issue with me, since my subject of my research has been the study of our local star. As I gathered historical climatological records for this project, the relibility of the data became rather uncertain.