I don’t know if anyone saw the interview with former D*Ream pop merchant and BBC “accessible” science flavour-of-the-month Brian Cox - sorry, Professor Brian Cox (he’s an actual scientist, you know) - in yesterday’s Telegraph. It was in the magazine thingy, so I doubt if it’s online. It contained this cracker:
I’m guessing he finds climate deniers [sic] frustrating?
“Yeah, they’re incredibly irritating.
Right back atcha there, Coxie, but do continue…
Climate modelling is a difficult science, but there is a consensus about the modelling. Putting CO2 into the atmosphere will warm the climate.
Duh. But by how much? That’s the several trillion dollar question, and the answers we’ve heard from the “Consensus” (ha!) so far have been - and I say this with confidence - wildly wrong. It’s all about the forcing, Bri: does it accelerate the warming, or is it just bollocks?
But here’s the kicker. You’re going to love this:
Science makes no claim to be true, what it does is give us theories and models of nature that work, given what we know. It’s also about finding data that disagrees with the model, that way you can make a better model.”
Brian, Brian, Brian… where to begin? Have you, a physicist, even been following the debate? Because a believer bringing up the notion of falsifiction is, to put it mildly, a bit fucking rich. You want data that disagree with the model? Try looking at sea levels. Or upper-atmosphere temperatures and humidity. Try reading WUWT. Or Climate Audit. It’s all there if you look for it. The last thing the Consensus wants is data that disagrees with it. It doesn’t want a better model; it wants one that fits with its political agenda. This is not normal science were talking about, pretty-boy.
(Actually, on that note, his take on atheism - Dawkins is too shrill, if you want to believe something that isn’t true that’s fine as long as you don’t force it on anyone else - is pretty good.)