The modern shaman is the scientist who pretends to have a crystal ball and uses his imaginary implement to make alarmist predictions about the future state of the world. They try to take advantage of the respect that their scientific credentials confer upon them. The shaman does a disservice to both his credibility and the prestige of science in the public’s mind when his crystal ball later proves defective.
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. ~ James Hansen 1999
Recent heat waves that have triggered wildfires, droughts, and heat-related deaths in the United States and around the globe “almost certainly would not have occurred” without global warming—and will become more routine in coming years, NASA climate scientist James Hansen says. ~ Aug. 6, 2012
Hansen was right in 1999. See the link.
Shamans have been present in every age. In times gone by when knowledge could be gleaned about nature and because of a lack of connection between people it was easier for a person to pass himself off as someone who had special knowledge because he did have special knowledge about a few things. People would then defer to him in other matters of importance to them and assume that the shaman must have some insight that they could not possess because they did not have the special powers of the shaman.
In the past special knowledge conferred respect and deference.
As human knowledge grew and the population became more educated it was more difficult to play the role of the shaman because people became aware of the charlatan. Skepticism accompanied those who claimed special knowledge.
But as human knowledge grew so did the specialisation of human knowledge so that it was more difficult to be an expert in more than one area of human inquiry. People in one area of science would not necessarily know what other scientists had learned about our universe. A new class of expert grew who were consulted by those who were in charge of government. While conferring many benefits this specialisation of knowledge also presented difficulties for political leaders who needed to consult with these experts. The experts became de facto shamans who could direct policy because they had the knowledge and knowledge is power.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
And the experts have often been wrong about the future. We need to bear this in mind while constructing policy for the future.
Cue climate science. The weather/climate is a non-linear and chaotic system which makes it very difficult to predict its direction. We should be even more skeptical of the crystal ball used to predict future climate because of this fickleness. Who knows where it goes?
There are many climate scientists who are predicting disaster in our future if we don’t reduce our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere which they regard as a stimulus to positive climate feedbacks that will cause CAGW. Like witches in the past CO2 has become the modern demon of bad weather. In the case of climate science we have a ready check on the predictions that are made by climate scientists. We can consult with Mother Nature and see if she agrees with their assessments.
For example it is relatively easy for the layperson to determine if extreme weather is getting worse as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. All we have to know how to do is count. How many hurricanes in the past? How many now? If there are fewer now or the trend is not up then the extreme weather prediction is wrong for hurricanes. Repeat for floods, drought, tornadoes, forest fires and any other type of ‘weather’ you can quantify. Check the trend.
If bad weather happened in the past when CO2 was at a lower concentration in the air than it is now then it lends credence to the view that CO2 has nothing to do with it.
If you predict a temperature increase in the atmosphere as CO2 increases in the atmosphere and it doesn’t happen then the theory is invalidated and science says: modify or abandon the theory because as it stands the theory is wrong.
If the theory predicts that sea level rise will accelerate as CO2 increases in the atmosphere go and measure it over time and see what the trend becomes. It there is no rise or it remains steady then the theory is wrong. Check with Mother Nature. She will tell you if the experts know what they are talking about.
Using Mother Nature to detect climate change snake oil salesmen becomes an easy pastime for even the unschooled in atmospheric physics. We do not have to fear our ignorance of climate science. We just have to trust our sixth sense - common. It does not matter what the Phd backed climate models have to say. It only matters what Mother Nature has to say and her currency is common sense. A Phd does not come with a direct line to the truth or with a guarantee of infallibility. Although perhaps it shouldn’t be granted without a sense of humility.
Baseball players dump gatorade or whipped cream pies on the head of the player who wins the game with a walk off hit so that their success does not inflate their ego. They are reminded that they are just one of the team. Perhaps we should dump gatorade on our Phds when they are conferred.
No comments:
Post a Comment