Trust the media on ‘climate science?’ The following reads like parody from the Onion, but it’s no joke:
CBS This Morning featured a futurist who promotes paranormal phenomena like ‘telepathy, telekinesis and mind reading’ as climate expert during its February 13 broadcast. CBS only identified physicist Michio Kaku (firstname.lastname@example.org) as a New York City College professor, with no mention of his special abilities. See: CBS Blames Global Warming for Harsh Winter Weather: Prof. Michio Kaku: ‘Excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air….So that’s the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions’
Kaku’s website (http://mkaku.org/home/) promotes his book: “THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.” And his quest to promote: “Telepathy. Telekinesis. Mind reading. Photographing a dream. Uploading memories. Mentally controlled robots.”
CBS promotes him, but even climate scientists are embarrassed about his pronouncements.
Climate scientist Judith Curry noted recently that there are some pretty interesting parallels between climate science and nutrition science. Those similarities do not speak well of either discipline. To make her point she includes excerpts from a NYTimes article by Gary Taubes, author of books like Good Calories, Bad Calories, Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It, and Diet Delusion.
I mean, think about it. The same government that supported margarine over butter for decades in the face of much evidence to the contrary, is supporting very invasive, burdensome responses to theories about climate change that have yet to be proven conclusively. Their solutions to food science often killed more people than they helped (margarine is just that bad for you, and butter from grassfed cows is just that good for you). Why would we trust this same government to be any more discerning or wise about what’s good for us when it comes to energy and climate? Looking at what they have done with nutrition science, why trust them with a billion dollars for climate science? (or bird killing)
Nutrition science and climate science share some common challenges: complex system(s) and many confounding factors. Severe tests for nutrition science can in principle be done, but they are very expensive and take decades. Severe tests for climate science require better observational evidence, particularly in the past.
When there’s no evidence to falsify what is merely a supposition,we are left with ”magical theories that explains absolutely everything – including diametrically contradictory phenomena, lack of logic and absence of evidence.”
I agree with Mayo/Katzav that when evidence is inadequate for a severe test, it is important to identify aspects of the hypothesis that remain to be tested, and to provide an assessment of alternative hypotheses.
In climate science, the limitations of available evidence and weak reasoning behind the high confidence levels of the IPCC conclusions reflect acceptance of lower standards of evidence on what is believed to be true.