Here's why I trust the science and mistrust many of the scientists. Science is always ongoing. Nothing is final, and beyond critical examination. It's goals are not truths, but theories that presently best explain the phenomena being examined. When journalists and activists promote "settled science", I wonder if they understand the nature of science. When scientists promote "settled science", something like my "BS detection" is immediately engaged. Feynman addresses the nature of science in many books and videos.
Climate science is extremely important, and an energy transition, if needed, is extremely difficult and expensive, the most expensive change humans ever attempted. Fossil fuel companies worldwide have revenues of over 4 trillion dollars a year. The energy transition makes that 4 trillion dollars revenue annually up for grabs. Climate science itself is incredibly complex. It's as open to corruption by money as any any other institution, but never before in history has there ever been anywhere near this amount of money to corrupt. There are many fossil fuel millionaires and billionaires, and now this century, already many new alternative energy millionaires and billionaires. Blind trust, I am convinced, in what the fossil fuel or alternative energy companies, and their promoters claim, is worse than naive. If the scientific requirement of skepticism isn't itself enough to promote healthy skepticism, then surely the influence of money, should. And it's not just money's corrupting influence, but also its ability to shape "understandings"! Governments have spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding both academic climate science and thousands of "climate advocating" NGOs to promote the "settled science".
Without even getting to the many, troubling complexities of climate science, especially attribution science, that is why I trust science, but distrust so many climate scientists.
Here's why I trust the science and mistrust many of the scientists. Science is always ongoing. Nothing is final, and beyond critical examination. It's goals are not truths, but theories that presently best explain the phenomena being examined. When journalists and activists promote "settled science", I wonder if they understand the nature of science. When scientists promote "settled science", something like my "BS detection" is immediately engaged. Feynman addresses the nature of science in many books and videos.
Climate science is extremely important, and an energy transition, if needed, is extremely difficult and expensive, the most expensive change humans ever attempted. Fossil fuel companies worldwide have revenues of over 4 trillion dollars a year. The energy transition makes that 4 trillion dollars revenue annually up for grabs. Climate science itself is incredibly complex. It's as open to corruption by money as any any other institution, but never before in history has there ever been anywhere near this amount of money to corrupt. There are many fossil fuel millionaires and billionaires, and now this century, already many new alternative energy millionaires and billionaires. Blind trust, I am convinced, in what the fossil fuel or alternative energy companies, and their promoters claim, is worse than naive. If the scientific requirement of skepticism isn't itself enough to promote healthy skepticism, then surely the influence of money, should. And it's not just money's corrupting influence, but also its ability to shape "understandings"! Governments have spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding both academic climate science and thousands of "climate advocating" NGOs to promote the "settled science".
Without even getting to the many, troubling complexities of climate science, especially attribution science, that is why I trust science, but distrust so many climate scientists.
You’re taking me back to 2010 when I wrote about my level of trust in climate science.- and climate scientists https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/on-harvard-misconduct-climate-research-and-trust/