June 1, 2010

Scientific Calculator

Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, trusts the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report’s conclusions that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the primary cause of climate change. When pressed, the customary response of Browner and other proponents has been to rely on that oft-cited list of 2,500 scientists said to have given their full support of the report’s conclusions. Browner should check her facts.

Good science is not a democratic process where the vote of the majority or a consensus of scientists determines the inner workings of nature. The scientific method is a transparent process for acquiring new knowledge, laid bare for constant and withering critique, and may become generally accepted but is never “settled.” Some climate scientists, such as those exposed in the Climategate emails, continue to shortcut the scientific method while declaring their views as absolute. Politicians who shield themselves from criticism with the cloak of scientific absolutism are dangerous when contrary science is ignored when formulating public policy.

Browner, when pressed about opposing views of the state of climate science during a November 25, 2009, press conference, cited as her evidence the equivalent of a scientist head count. “[W]e have 2,500 of the world’s foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this [human-caused climate change] is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible. What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists.” Let’s check Browner’s arithmetic.

After years of protests, the IPCC finally completed placing all reviewer comments and editor responses online.