etee's Blog

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it's something in the water. First of all, we have a local rightwingnuter blogger admitting that We Were Wrong. I have already said my piece on this startling revelation, including a bit of wondering about just who constituted "we", and a bit of speculation on whether or not these eyes would remain open for long. The jury is still out on that, by the way.

Then, just to show that for every yin there needs to be a yang to keep the cosmos in balance, our local science writer/blogger seems to have had a similar Road to Damascus experience, which he chronicles in a candid admission that just maybe Climate scientists should talk about what "may" happen, rather than what "will" happen:

For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this.

[...]

The problem is that some climate scientists and environmentalists have been so determined to see something done about carbon dioxide emissions -- now -- that they have glossed over the uncertainties.

*THUD* (That, by the way, was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor in shock)

In a way, this was even more of a surprise than the political blogger's admission. For one thing, this guy is a professional journalist, and if you read his posting, you will see what comes about as close to an admission as is possible that, on this subject at least, he was more of an advocate than an unbiased, "fair and balanced" reporter. (I would like to point out that it is perfectly OK to be both a journalist and an advocate, but it is really important that, in such cases, the journalist be up front and honest about said advocacy.) For another, his coverage of other matters science/weather related (most notably hurricanes) has actually been quite good (IMHO), so his pronouncements carried an extra air of legitimacy.

So, what happened? Well, I think he got so caught up in the whole AGW mania, and forgot one of the cardinal rules of the scientist: if the hypothesis doesn't fit the data, then change the hypothesis. And, always maintain a healthy skepticism (in other words, act like you are from Missouri.) Anyway, everybody else was so certain, that when the Kool-Aid reached him, he drank deeply. Then, when reports surfaced that the science was not quite as settled as was once thought, he became, in his own words, "confused".

So, has he turned over a new leaf, do we in fact have a changed man (or at least a man with a changed view)? Well, at least one commenter isn't totally buying it:

I'm not sold that he'll be open minded, just that he's going to change the wording. "May" instead of "will" so that he doesn't look so wrong when things don't happen as they are predicting.

Yeah, I am thinking maybe the same thing. There are two statements which lead me toward this hypothesis (one of which Cory also identified):

When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate.

and

I am not a climate change skeptic.

As I noted earlier, one of the things I learned in high school science was that you must always maintain a healthy skepticism, and be willing to adjust your hypothesis if the data doesn't support it. This is one of the key differences between science and religious dogma: if the facts don't happen to fit the dogma, you just discount the facts, as dogma is meant to be accepted "on faith". The fact that he hasn't developed an attitude of skepticism (instead, only getting as far as "confused") makes me think that he still has a way to go (at least on this issue.)

So, like any good scientist, I will observe, and see what the data ends up saying. However, for the time being, please don't hate me if I remain somewhat of a skeptic. 'K?