The global warming debate often degenerates into one side — the alarmists — claiming the other side — skeptics — is anti-science. Believers wrap themselves in science as if it were an impenetrable and absolute defense.
But science is not perfect. As this headline in Wired says, “Scientists Are Wrong All The Time, and That’s Fantastic.”
According to author Marcus Woo, “When a researcher gets proved wrong, that means the scientific method is working. Scientists make progress by redoing each other’s experiments — replicating them to see if they can get the same result. More often than not, they can’t.”
In the case of global warming — or climate change — scientists have replicated the results of each other’s climate models. Almost all of them predict warming. The trouble for these scientists, though, is reality is not consistent with the modeling.
Woo acknowledges that when scientists are proved wrong, “it’s way too hard for people to find out.”
It shouldn’t be that way with global warming. The end-of-times disasters predicted have not occurred, and temperatures have been flat for almost two decades now. These things are obvious.
Woo notes that “scientists don’t like to step on each other’s toes” and quotes Elizabeth Iorns, CEO of Science Exchange, who says researchers “feel a lot of pressure not to contradict each other.”
She adds, “There’s a lot of evidence that if you do that, it’ll be negative for your career.”
If climate science were truly settled, why would the dissenters be treated this way? Wouldn’t it be enough to simply let the man-made warming take its course to prove them wrong?
The way much of the alarmist community continues to behave is further confirmation that the climate change debate is not about science. It’s about politics.