Rebutting the rebutters
OK, so you’ve probably heard about that op-ed in the WSJ six days ago where 16 scientists came out and said “[t]here’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”
That is: don’t worry about global warming.
Then the warmies such as Kevin Trenberth hit back.
DO you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
The opinion piece “Climate change ‘heretics’ refute carbon dangers” (Wednesday) was the climate-science equivalent of dentists practising cardiology. While accomplished, most of its authors have no expertise in climate science. The few who have are known to hold extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.
Well, sorry Kevin et. al.. Jo Nova has some news for you.
Hand back your science degrees Trenberth et al.
Thirty eight of the worlds top, most consequential climate scientists sought to slap down the Nobel prize winner, astronaut and glitterati of science, and all they could come up with was a logical fallacy and a single paragraph of incohate, innumerate, and improbable evidence. It’s hand-waving on stilts.
Is that the best they can do?
Trenberth and co try to rebut No Need to Panic About Global Warming, but those 16 eminent scientists quoted evidence and pointed out major flaws in the assumptions of the theory. They described forms of scientific malpractice, and called for open debate. In comparison, the 38 climate “scientists” offered hardly more than argument from authority, “Trust Us: We’re Experts” they said as if the lesser beings, who were mere Professors of Astrophysics, Meteorology, and Physics, were too stupid to know the difference between a doctor and a dentist. I mean, sure the 16 skeptics could be wrong, but if the evidence is so overwhelming, why can’t the 38 experts find it?
Q: What kind of doctor is a scientist who can’t reason?
A: a witchdoctor.
Do, do read on.
Samuel J over at Catallaxy Files has a crack, too.
Sinclair has discussed a couple of paragraphs from the Trenberth op ed, but forgive me for offering my two cent’s worth.
The 456 words of this op ed, presumably written by Trenberth and signed by 37 of his friends and colleagues is dwarfed by the 532 words used to list the author and his co-signers and their various credentials. It is typical of the folly of appealing to authority / credentials rather than mounting a sensible argument.
That 38 people would put their names to such a pathetic attempt at defence says a lot about their character and aptitude. After studying a second-rate ‘science’ and enjoying a long period of excessive returns for that study, they are now finding life is becoming a little more difficult and their views are coming under attack by scientists considerably more intelligent than these 38. Is this the best they can do?
So pathetic is the piece, it is irresistible to pull it apart.
H/T Cranky Old Crow