Climate talk should be left to real science
By Letter to the Editor on March 9, 2019.
Re: “Climate alarmism abuses science,” Feb. 26 Lynn Thacker rightly objects to “junk science” being used to sell ideas – about climate change or anything else. Unfortunately, Thacker fails to give any tests for sorting real science from the junk. I propose a Consumer’s Guide to Identifying Real Science. It is a simple scorecard which highlights seven features of real science. 1. Starting point. Real science does not begin with statements in the Bible or other holy books, claims in self-published books and tracts, or the rantings of 24-hour news channel commentators. Real science starts with repeated observations, statistical analysis, and logical reasoning. 2. Source. Real science is seldom published on Fox News, Breitbart.com, or Rebel Media. Real science is found in peer-reviewed journals, websites maintained by long-standing scientific societies, and presentations and debates at conferences of working scientists. It is summarized in publications like Nature or Science (AAAS), and popularized in magazines like Scientific American. 3. Relevance. Real science stays focused on evidence. It avoids exaggeration, emotional language, and irrelevant debates over terminology. Working scientists can’t afford to discard ideas because they feel challenged or insulted. 4. Credibility. Real scientists are continually publishing original research. Most of them are employed by recognized universities, government agencies, and research organizations. Having a PhD degree in an unrelated field, being a conference speaker, or posting photos in a lab coat is not enough. 5. Probability. Real science gives the simplest logical explanation for observations. It does not propose unlikely possibilities like mass conspiracies or enemy plots to undermine our way of life. 6. On-going debate. Scientific debate does not take place in daily newspapers, on Twitter, or on entertainment media channels. It happens in scientific journals, conferences, phone calls and emails between colleagues. Explanations with the most evidence and the best logic win out. The number of “likes” or “retweets,” and the volume of insulting language is irrelevant. 7. Openness to revision. Real science is continuously being revised to accommodate new information and to correct flaws in mathematics or logical reasoning. Junk science clings to discarded ideas as though they were still being seriously considered. Using the criteria above, it is clear why the vast majority of working climate scientists reject the “climate sceptic” arguments advanced in Thacker’s recent letters. They don’t pass the tests for real science. They belong in the junkyard. Maybe parts of them can be salvaged or recycled, but they are no longer cruising down the highway of scientific thought. The letter expresses doubts about what Thacker calls “climate change hysteria.” I think the opposite, “climate change complacency,” is at least as dangerous. David Gue Medicine Hat 15-14
