I can't complain too much about the SJR's "In My View" columns, since they were kind enough to run mine. But today's is a doozy. I don't want to grapple with it to much, for fear of granting it legitimacy it doesn't deserve. So let me say this: Mr. Watt's contention is that his back-of-the-envelope probabilistic calculations suggest that there is slim chance that climate scientists can accurately predict the exact temperature the Earth will reach under a business-as-usual scenario. Well, okay. But they don't try to do that. They provide ranges, which are based (in part) on understanding the sensitivity of their models to changes in initial conditions, which Mr. Watt appears to not realize is something that they do. Of course, you must always make allowances for limited space in these columns, but I don't see how his example doesn't fall apart completely when you understand that climate projections are done this way.
Comments (2)
Mr. Watt's column reminds me of the tactics used by the creationists. Creationists knew that they won't pass muster in any scientific peer-review publications. He is using the creationists' tactics by bypassing the scientific peer-review process, take his "findings" directly to the public and claim that there is a "debate".
He should read the book, "The Weather Makers" and read scientific journals before revealing his ignorance of facts.
Posted by Larry Trutter | May 8, 2007 7:18 AM
Posted on May 8, 2007 07:18
Comparing climate skeptics (people like Michael Crichton or Mr. Watt) to creationists is always popular, and for all I know may be spot-on, but I think they're more like Fred Leuchter, aka Mr. Death--people who can't get their heads around their own limitations and see that their startling insight is simply wrong. This, of course, does not apply to the ExxonMobils of the world.
Posted by greg c | May 8, 2007 7:45 AM
Posted on May 8, 2007 07:45