Are you guys hot?

As we all know, our climate is getting hotter. Or so the “scientists” say. Now, I personally am the last person to make idiotic statements about science that some frum Jews and Conservatives make (and I am allowed to say that being a frum Jew and somewhat of a Conservative myself). If the evidence says X, the world looks like X, whether or not it contradicts our tradition (of course, it doesn’t deny the tradition, but the contradiction is there).

As Einstein wrote, one evidence that scientists are on to something is the fact that our lives are clearly better over the years as a result of science. Look around and ask yourself, how much of what you see would be possible without science? I am not just talking about computer. I am talking about your clothes. Your house. Your glasses. Your health (and if you’re young like me, the health of your older relatives).

Now, Chinese medicine has been on to something for a while. Their methods definitely cure or alleviate diseases or symptoms. It doesn’t mean that their models of how human body works, with winds, fires, chi, and chakras (yes, ok, that’s Indian), are true. They just got lucky or discovered how to cure using trial and error. And then explained their results post hoc. Science, however, first explains how something works, then predicts how to cure something, and then finds the cure. (In theory. In practice, life is more complicated as always.)

On the other hand, I have no problems calling something nonsense when I see it. A real scientist (or someone who’s been in the science long enough — certainly not me) immediately recognizes nonsense wrapped in scientific language. Psychology? In theory could be science, in practice is not. Political science? Same thing. Alchemy?..

What’s in common? They all do not make good use of scientific method. It’s that simple. Plus, there is an interesting phenomenon: in Biology, we first go into the cell, discover an organelle, describe its properties and structure, and then call it “mitochondria” (the actual name giving can happen whenever, but the idea of mitochondria arises after we’ve described the phenomenon). In psychology, first we have some concept, which is a bubble on some van diagram, and then “scientists” go in and describe it.

It’s almost as if some “sciences” were still based on philosophy. (Traditionally, all sciences are — that’s why we become Doctors of Philosophy; although in reality, it’s just a tradition, separating us from Doctors of Medicine, Doctors of Jurisprudence, etc.) Meaning, there is still an idea that you can sit in a dark room, think about an idea, and somehow figure out whether it’s right or not. Perhaps it will appeal to you. Perhaps you will like its elegance. Perhaps it will make you feel fulfilled or secure.

In such a situation, all kinds of ideas could be true. Which is probably where the whole liberal notion of equality of all ideas comes from. In science, an idea is true when there is evidence for it. That is why, when people ask me: “Well, you have studied Chassidus to some degree, and Jewish philosophy, and Jewish law, but have you studied Indian religions?”, I answer: why? Why should I waste time? Where is the evidence they have any truth? That their source is a valid source, not just some guy having a fantasy?

By the way, not all social sciences and humanities are non-sciences. Linguistics, for instance, is a real science. Its ideas are based on evidence, and its theories and hypotheses are based on logical modeling. In fact, my college professor of linguistics told me that the field needs mathematicians. Which is always a good sign we are talking about a science (although if you consider what String Theory is...).

So, going back to climate change, surely there is one. Because climatology is a science, collecting hard evidence, using models to explain and predict it, etc. The whole package. And there is hard evidence today. Right?

This article introduces some skepticism to the idea.

Several of the e-mails were allegedly written by Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit. One, dated November 16, 1999, contained a sentence about temperatures and referred to a “trick” that could be used to “hide the decline”.

This article is much more cautious and tries to drape allegations of hiding evidence in the idea of enmity between scientists, but if you read between the lines...

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Although liberals are not true in saying that all ideas deserve respect and are somehow equally true, it is true that everybody should make up his/her own mind — but not by listening what one’s intuition tells him (a popular methods amongst some people). To ascertain the truth, one must look at the facts.

More blogs questioning modern research and propaganda of global warming: What’s Up with That?, Climate Audit. From the last blog:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK