Becoming a Proud and Competent Information Gatherer - 260

Sometimes learning opportunities fall from the sky like, let’s say, Letters to the Editor. What did you think about an LTE titled “Climate Change: Bogus Science” printed two weeks ago?  Did you say, “I don’t care?” Or, did you say to yourself, “Oh, that must be true; that is what I have always believed.” Or, perhaps, you said, “That fellow Greyson Morrow has written over 250 well-referenced columns on climate science. This is interesting; I wonder if he is right.”

I hope you said, “To the best of my ability, I will figure this out.”  This option is the best. While it is not easy, and there is no guarantee that you will find the elusive truth, it is the honorable path.

Sometimes, it is possible to weed out the ridiculous right off the bat. For example, when I flew helicopters during preflight and often during the flight, I had to compute torque available, maximum payload, the center of gravity, wind correction, and range. But, of course, computational mistakes happen, so the standard common-sense crosscheck is to see if the numbers you cranked out are possible. In other words, if the power available meant I could lift a locomotive or my range computation said I could fly to Paris, I needed to throw those numbers out and start over.

Look at the possibility of Climate Change as Bogus Climate Science. Start with, “How many (bogus)climate scientists are there?”  This is a large but indefinite number.  I have heard as low as 14,000 and as high as 24,000. Already I can sense your doubt. There is such a vast difference in estimates of who is a climate scientist because, like doctors, specialists whose title is not climate scientist, such as meteorologists, geologists, computer scientists, tree ring scientists, historians, or even mathematicians, make vital contributions to climate science work. Climate affects every corner of the science spectrum. Thus, scientists cited in papers are often not specifically climate scientists. For instance, James Hansen, the scientist who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the most respected scientists ever, was trained as an Atmospheric Physicist.  

Reuters compiled a list of the 1000 most influential climate scientists. You could investigate them to get an idea of how many scientific disciplines are involved in climate science because if you research their work submitted to science journals, there are an incredible number of contributing professionals.

To avoid being accused of inflating, we can safely say there are well over 10,000 climate scientists, and many more are training at the best universities worldwide to serve in the vast field of climate science. But, I wonder, if you interviewed a scientist who has spent his life studying the earth’s climate, “Did you know you are practicing Bogus Science” what their response might be, other than to look at you as unschooled.

The main target of, “Climate Change: Bogus Science” was Michael Mann, one of the most honored scientists in history. He is the Presidential Distinguished Professor of Earth & Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Does the University of Pennsylvania know their Presidential Professor is a Bogus Scientist?  

Reputable science organizations have given Mann 18 awards. Any scientist would be honored with just one. Have the boards making these awards had any inkling they were selecting a Bogus Scientist?

You know where I am going. If climate science is bogus, thousands of high-IQ climate scientists mindlessly practice fake science.  That is a preposterous insinuation.

In the same LTE, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC was accused of not being a scientific body. The IPCC is a joint venture of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. While not every person who works to produce its findings is a scientist, the IPCC employs scientists to scrutinize peer-reviewed science reports from thousands of scientists in the field. From these, they make recommendations to the 195 members of the United Nations. To complete the last report, 234 scientists reviewed over 14,000 peer-reviewed papers. I wonder if these scientists knew they were reading bogus documents to synthesize a bogus report for a bogus institution.

In 1989 sixty-eight countries gathered in Noordwijk, Netherlands, to discuss and act to stop the alarming rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They hoped the world could get ahead of the carbon crisis. They came close but failed.

 The IPCC was formed in 1988. It has both scientists and political representatives. My disappointment with the IPCC is that, early on, OPEC and the other oil-producing countries had the political power to slow and water down the science. Now the science world, 34 years later, has finally persevered.  It is my observation that the IPCC has been inclusive and methodical. The science has been meticulously compiled and reviewed. The result of this inclusivity and meticulousness is that the IPCC has moved slowly.  This monumental effort to be perfect has led to incredible accuracy, but we have lost much time.  I am disappointed, but for me to say, or anyone else to say, the IPCC is not a science-based organization is outrageous.

In the same LTE, “Climate Change: Bogus Science,” several old denier tropes were put to bed years ago. The Medevil Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the Roman Warm Period were mentioned in the LTE to make us think that Michael Mann, and the two dozen other climate teams who have reproduced and expanded on the climate hockey stick, somehow forgot them. These warming and cooling trends in Europe and the North Sea are documented in regional weather. They were included when computing global temperatures, but their impact is small when adding them to the global mix.  I wonder if the 24-plus teams who meticulously assembled their reports for review in respected science journals knew they were compiling bogus science.  

Evaluating what is true versus false can often be done rapidly, as statements must pass common sense rules. The next step is interesting. Sometimes we can discover the source of misinformation quickly. In the LTE, the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” was referenced as high authority. Let’s examine the “Center.”  The Center was created and primarily run by three people: Sherwood Idso and his two sons Craig and Keith Idso.  Their advanced educations tilt towards botany.

The Center has attracted large donations from Exxon Oil, the largest oil company in the USA, Koch Industries, the largest privately owned oil company, and Peabody Coal. The Center’s revenue, according to Wikipedia, is $1,001,003. As such, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is widely known as a “Front Group” for fossil fuel companies. As an organization, it is referred to as a “Name on Paper” organization.

If you wish to track their misinformation in detail, here are the organizations who debunk the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Examples of climate scientists debunking claims made by the Idso family can be found on “Real Climate.” In addition, refutations of scientific literature that undermine the conclusions of “CO2 Science” are available at Skeptical Science, run by John Cook.

We can make good choices. Here we have a choice between the IPCC, whose 234 scientists reviewed 14,000 papers.

In contrast, the author of “Bogus Science” wants us to believe an organization created by three Idsos and funded by the largest emitters of carbon dioxide is a more credible source of scientific information.

I can be conned, but the LTE, “Climate Change: Bogus Science,” is one of the most pathetic efforts to misinform people I have witnessed.

Perhaps I overused the word “Bogus.” There are plenty of terms humans use when they detect “BS.” To shorten things, let’s limit the words to just those beginning with B, like babble, bafflegab, balderdash, bilge, blabber, blarney, blather, bollocks, bosh, and bunkum. Those apply to the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.”

Our ancestors developed these terms because our species has plenty of BSers. You can improve your BS detector by reading widely and being skeptical. It takes work. Do the claims even pass the test of being remotely credible? Does the conspiratorial information come from a fringe organization? And who funds the organization promoting bizarre theories attempting to discredit reputable men and women?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Legacy

Your Hero: Plato or Joe the Plumber?

Becoming Wise Gardeners