Rejoining scientific consensus vs. rejoining the CoJCoLDS
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:38 pm
An eminent scientist who headed up a research group funded in part by anti global warming fossil-fuel rich billionaires such as the Kochs has just come up with some new conclusions:
How, according to his account, did he come to this striking turn-around in his opinions (what the Greeks might have called a metanoia)? Did he stop eating and talk to himself a lot until he felt a voice speaking to him that he was sure was a deity? Nope. Did he yearn for the lost fellowship of the majority of the scientists he trained with and worked with for years? Did he feel a deep need to reaffirm certain shared values of community within a perfectly valid scientific tradition, while acknowledging his continuing doubts in an adult manner? Nope.
He changed his mind because he thought the objective evidence pointed that way. He did sums. He drew graphs. He checked his conclusions by more than one independent means.
When he rejoins the consensus, he will not be required to undergo any kind of process of repentance. His PhD will not be ritually re-conferred on him - because he never lost it. He will not have to make any approved statement of his new opinions. Nobody will shed tears.
He just says what he thinks, and people read his paper and make up their own minds whether the conclusions follow from the evidence.
There is an obvious contrast here, is there not?
Richard A. Muller wrote:CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
How, according to his account, did he come to this striking turn-around in his opinions (what the Greeks might have called a metanoia)? Did he stop eating and talk to himself a lot until he felt a voice speaking to him that he was sure was a deity? Nope. Did he yearn for the lost fellowship of the majority of the scientists he trained with and worked with for years? Did he feel a deep need to reaffirm certain shared values of community within a perfectly valid scientific tradition, while acknowledging his continuing doubts in an adult manner? Nope.
He changed his mind because he thought the objective evidence pointed that way. He did sums. He drew graphs. He checked his conclusions by more than one independent means.
When he rejoins the consensus, he will not be required to undergo any kind of process of repentance. His PhD will not be ritually re-conferred on him - because he never lost it. He will not have to make any approved statement of his new opinions. Nobody will shed tears.
He just says what he thinks, and people read his paper and make up their own minds whether the conclusions follow from the evidence.
There is an obvious contrast here, is there not?
