'Hairy, Scary Science' was presented
For several months a couple people have deluged newspaper readers with more than 4,900 words about global warming.
However, they do not offer a logical or clearly written presentation so his comments will be ignored, but their comments need some objective response. Frank Coupal offered a very cogent response which was right on point, which resulted in a Sanders County man sending in another letter to the editors.
To use a play on Bush's inept phrase [see presidential campaign debates, October 2000, Boston] let us see if the writer's science and facts are “fuzzy science.” In late February, the man put forth 14 statements which he claimed proved global warming is not true in the sense that one of its main causes is man.
Coupal effectively destroyed 11 of these. He said they “were essentially invalid since they all describe isolated weather events.” Coupal then proceeded to explain why isolated weather events do not constitute climate or weather. That position is resoundingly the one taken by a vast majority of trained and objective meteorologists and climatologists. It is even conceded by many of the so-called scientists our Plains man cites.
Coupal pointed out that the other three statements made by the writer relate to the Antarctic and he explains why they are questionable. Coupal was making an understatement.
In reality, local man's use of anomalous data is truly nonscientific. It is the method used by amateurs to try to sell their viewpoint. They use extraneous data that does not appear in true scientific publications. True scientific periodicals are those subject to peer review. Real scientific data, discoveries, analysis, and theories are submitted to peer-reviewed publications where trained and practicing scientists in the same area of science review the material to see if meets the criteria of accuracy, objectivity and the scientific method which are so vital in real science.
Comments made on a few of these will make it obvious that the Plains man's science is more than “fuzzy.” He asserts the polar bear population has soared in recent years. This is partially true but omits many facts, which make such an assertion for the polar bear population of the world incorrect and based on questionable scientific objectivity. One report states that “no adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate.” It also states that “in areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress due to shrinking sea ice.” Scientists admit that there are groups of bear populations [19 sub-populations] and not all have been studied. But in all those which have been studied they reach the above conclusion relating to the overall situation of the polar bear [i.e. “signs of stresses”]. But the Sanders County man cites a single study of a limited area [i.e. sub-population] which does show an increase from the mid 1980s to today. But he neglects to report that other studies in this area show that much of the increase was due to conservation activities. He also fails to tell the reader than the study he cites was funded by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit. Critics claim the government wants to keep the polar bear off the endangered species list and also wants to increase hunting of polar bears.
Regarding the other pole, the Antarctic, the writer makes claims of almost all the ice returning in just nine months. Actually, this study was only for the years 1979 to 1999. What that study showed is that “some areas close to the Antarctic continent have sea ice all year long, but a much larger region of the southern ocean has sea ice for a smaller portion of the year.”
A study of the Arctic ice not cited by him shows that a large portion of the ice returns each year but is thinner and lasts for less time. In fact, the lead study author [true scientist] states “This thinner, younger ice makes the Arctic much more susceptible to rapid melt.” In the Arctic it is highly analogous to walking on frozen ice before it is thick enough to hold. Having the same area of ice, but thinner, doesn't make for the same amount of ice or more. It means less ice.
In his reply to Coupal, the writer gives a list of what he calls “real scientists.” Obviously, his intent is to snow us with a long list. Let us just look at a few of the names to see what kind of resources the local man uses and what kind of research can be expected from him.
One possesses a J.D. and a B.A. degree. His major was political science. Another has a Ph.D. in geography. Another has his degree in agriculture economics. Yet all of these are listed by him as “real scientists”
He also cites Joseph d'Aleo. He possesses a B.A. and M.A. in meteorology. He never finished his doctoral program. d'Aleo admits there is global warming. His believes it is not caused by man. d'Aleo has some serious problems relating to scientific research. He does not fare well with peer review. In fact there is one instance where another professor came to see one of his experiments after being invited by d'Aleo. The visiting professor informed him of “several significant problems in your experimental work.” After d'Aleo published his experiment on the Internet and in a pseudo-scientific magazine, the visiting professor attempted the experiment in his lab and obtained “negative results.” Throughout the process the visiting professor fully informed d'Aleo of his shortcomings. d'Aleo never remedied his experiment problems. Later, the visiting professor issued a statement saying, “I have lost confidence in your capacities as scientific people to make essential self-critical evaluations.” [emphasis is that of the visiting professor]
Other so-called “real scientists” cited by the writer present an interesting background. Some are funded and connected with groups of dubious scientific background or objectivity. Some of these groups are co-sponsors of activities hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. The writer is president of the Montana Property Right Association. Some of his “real scientists” work for the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming which is funded, in a large part, by the Western Fuel Association. That group denies that man by his use of fossil fuels contributes to global warming. Another heads the impressive sounding World Climate Review. But that turns out to be strongly funded by more than $100,000 in four years from coal and oil interests. Another he lists is the former CEO of Union Carbide and is wanted in India to face charges of culpable homicide for the tragic Bhopal, India, industrial disaster; the world's worst such disaster.
A person could go through every name on the writer's list, but that is not necessary.
The so-called “real scientists” upon which he relies, his use of unscientific studies, his use of selected isolated facts from studies, and his use of such facts without pointing out their limiting factors, makes it obvious as to what type of research we can expect from him. Biased! Selective! Unscientific!
President George W. Bush ineptly referred to “fuzzy math” eight years ago. Regarding the writer's science and research, we can take this term and safely state that his science and research are “Hairy and Scary Science.”
Ernest Scherzer
Trout Creek