|
First of all, being a "scientist" (which, I presume, includes everyone with a science degree) does not in itself give you any privilaged insight into the realities of global warming. There are, for instance, "scientists" out there who believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that autism is caused by childhood vaccinations. Their qualifications should have no bearing on how seriously we take their claims, which should live and die by the evidence presented, not by specious claims to authority.
Second of all, even if we were to allow the argument from authority as a legitimate one in this case, most of the scientists who have signed this letter are not even close to be being authorities on the subject. Just browsing through the list of signatories (which starts on page 218 here), the first name on the list is a "social scientist", the second name is a physicist, the third name is a biosystems engineer, the fourth and fifth names are both physicists, the seventh name is a biologist, the eighth name is a geographer, the ninth name is a "remote sensing scientist"... do I really need to continue? These are scientific disciplines with - at best - tangential relevence to the discipline of climatology. They have presumably done little applied research in the field of global climate change, so what evidence can they possibly bring to the table in support of their claims? What papers on the subject have they published in a journal of scientific review? How many of these papers have passed muster with those scientists most intimately involved with the subject? I think we all know the answer to those questions (none).
Thirdly, even if we were to presume that each of these 650 signatories were authorities on the subject and could bring some credible evidence to the table in support of their claims, 650 - in a global context - is a vanishingly small number. The AGU, for instance, has over 50,000 accredited members, all trained in the Earth sciences that are relevent to the discussion of climate change. The position taken by the AGU is fairly unambiguous:
| quote: | The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
[...]
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. |
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/p...hange2008.shtml
Even if the 650 signatories were reliable authorities, they would constitute barely 1% of the reliable authorities who (nominally at least, by virtue of their membership in the AGU) believe the exact opposite. A quick search of that document tells me that only 4 of those 650 are noted as being members of the AGU. Considering that the AGU is comprised of individuals who are trained in the Earth sciences relevent to climate change (and should therefore be the first body of scientists that one should canvass on this issue) the complete lack of apparent dissent concerning the anthropic origins of climate change within this body is telling.
Finally, this petition appears to have been organised by James Inhofe, whose baseless and irrational objections to anthropogenic climate change are extremely well-known. Without wishing to over-generalise, his efforts are sadly typical of Republican attempts to politicise science during the past 8 years of the Bush administration. Sadly for Inhofe and those who take him seriously, science doesn't lend itself to the partisan rhetoric of politics: you can't win the debate just by having the majority on your side (especially ironic given that Inhofe doesn't even have a fraction of that to begin with). Science is dependent on research and evidence, and any dissenting opinions without that on their side are doomed to be left out in the cold.
My advice to climate-change skeptics is simple: find the evidence to support your position, collate that evidence into a paper that meets universal scientific standards, submit that paper to an accredited journal of scientific review and be ready to have convincing answers to the objections that other qualified scientists are sure to raise. The fact that the skeptics can hardly get past the first stage speaks volumes. In this context, I'm sure you can appreciate why I (or anyone else with sympathies for the scientific method) consider the submission of 650 signatures to the US senate to mean absolutely fuck all.
|
