Reply to ScienceTimes Piece in the New York Times of 2/17/2015 by Justin Gillis
“Verbal Warming: Labels in the Climate Debate”
When science degrades to the point that non-scientists like you spend time analyzing the nuance of name calling resorted to by the “experts” and their critics in a hopelessly complicated field instead of critically discussing the uncertainties inherent in an unpredictable nonlinear dynamic, I despair for the reputation and effectiveness of science as a policy driver. Next time try reading more of the science and less of the rhetoric before you write for the public. The climate scientists may debate, but only among themselves like, for instance, Jewish theologians arguing about the interpretations of the Bible as codified in the Talmud. The basic dogma is unassailable. The debate is only over what the dogma demands.
In a field where predictions of the simplest result differ by factors of 5 or so, consensus is laughable. The idea of an expert is laughable. And the disparate models with all their disagreements don’t agree with the data, particularly as shown in the average temperatures over the last 20 or so years. For a few years before that the models agree with the data because they are forced to and the experts wouldn’t dare compare their models to the distance past when the CO2 fraction was as much a 20x what it is now.
The science is not settled. The only consensus is the desire not to kill the goose which has laid golden eggs.
Charles Jordan, PhD (Elementary Particle Physics)
Physics Lecturer, Univ of Illinois