This was my summary posted at the NERC debate, last year, before it was closed off:
Thursday, 25 Jan 2007 – 02:52:10 GMT (post 364)
Proponents of AGW have to rely also on models as evidence, depend in part on “attribution-by-exclusion“, show little tolerance of scepticism and let political representatives mingle in their field of work.
Not really signs that AGW is a “strong” scientific theory
And now for the details:
Colin Prentice (CP) in #355: “There isn’t any contradiction. Of course, ‘sceptics’ can say what they like“
Leaving aside attacks to individuals and institutions, NERC imply scepticism of AGW is not valid and anti-scientific, as per text (A) “...there are STILL sceptics who dispute the data… If you don’t BELIEVE the science…” (my emphasis).
But CP writes in #351 “Without sceptisism, there would be no science! I would defend your right to be sceptical!“
If that is true, considering also that “the best evidence comes from a combination of models and observations” (CP, #265), shouldn’t we _expect_ plenty of valid scepticism of AGW?
Therefore, (A) should change to “…there are OF COURSE sceptics who dispute the data…“
CP in #355: “The GHG explanation for climate change is not attributed ‘by exclusion’“
Steve Schulin #362 answers that.
But my point is that a scientific discipline should abhor attribution-by-exclusion as a matter of principle: unless anybody here wants to support Intelligent Design as “science“.
3- Science and Government
AGW is unique as it mysteriously has to go through an “Inter_GOVERNMENTAL_ Panel“.
In the words of Associated Press (Jan 23), the upcoming IPCC report is written and reviewed by 1,200 scientists and then “edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries“.
Note that the IPCC report is not just a policy document: it collates and presents the science of AGW.
If I were a climate scientist I’d find the whole setup upsetting and humiliating. I wonder what “bureaucrats” had to say about evolution or particle physics.
Does this mean the people at NERC are victims of their own prejudices?
I wouldn’t be that harsh.
Climatology is a science, only it’s too young to be immune from the work of well-meaning people currently busy (1) paving the proverbial way to hell (without realising it), and (2) trying to find out how to convince us to use that road.
Sort of like anthropology in the XIX and early XX century, when the misguided aim of a just-founded science was to classify and rank human races: that too, honestly done to improve humanity and the world.
I always point to what happened when extremely well-meaning and knowledgeable people decided to introduce the Cane Toad (Bufo Marinus) to Australia to combat beetle infestations. ..with worst-than-disastrous results…