Geologist, Louis Hissink explains it well,
climate science political science is pretty clueless at explaining the science that includes weather and climate. This debate of course has never been about the climate, but models on how to attract the most money grants to keep the boondoggle going. Attacks on skeptics are mostly personal and not about the actual observations and science. So in other words, scientists like physicists, geologists, mathematicians, statisticians should shut up and go away according to people like Professor Lowe. Geologists like Louis Hissink here and Ian Plimer back up this scenario: climate science is not science…
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of the School of Science at Griffith University has published a bit of conversation reacting to Ian Plimer’s latest book; Lowe is of the opinion that “the forces of climate science denial have geared down a level”, a misplaced metaphor if there ever was one. Forces don’t gear down, they mighty wane, but gearing down? Lots of boxing of our gears by the emeritus professor.
Then his emeritus describes Ian Plimer as a geology professor and expert mineralogist with no background at all in climate science. Well, that is pretty accurate because climate science isn’t a science. What our poor emeritus doesn’t seem to understand is that science is about the business of explaining natural phenomena with extant scientifically validated facts, and then testing that explanation in the here and now. Climate is defined sensu-strictu as weather averaged over a period of 30 years, so that it is actually near impossible to test any climate theory as all experiments need to be conducted over a period greater than 30 years in order to observe climatic signals. But say that one experiment did last long enough for a scientist to make an observation from a test of the climate system, then in order to replicate that test, our scientist would need to then wait another 30 years at least for that result.
Our emeritus then decides to invoke a previous book “Heaven and Earth” written by Plimer, noting that it was a “an embarrassing collage of half truths, misinformation and misquotes of respectable scientists”. However the emeritus neglects to offer any refutation of the book he is commenting about, so we can accept that Lowe has geared his arguments up with by being logically fallacious.
The emeritus’ second last paragraph is interesting in that he asserts that the present climate is changing at a scale rate with no parallel in history. Well, perhaps not, the Global Mean Temperature has been somewhat static for the last 15 years, new biological species are being discovered, both Antarctica and Greenland remain icebound, though there are minor major climate catastrophes of a political kind, both in the EU and North Korea where a Yung-un has replaced the recently deceased Old-un.
Finally our emeritus concludes that Plimer’s book, (this is the exercise he refers to?) is to cleanse climate (science) of ideology and politics. The emeritus writes “that the IPA ideology of free markets and unconstrained capitalism should be promoted in schools to counter the scientific evidence that we are straining the capacity of natural systems”. He find this a matter of real concern. The problem is that Plimer’s latest book isn’t about politics but about science written in lay terms. That the emeritus thinks it’s a capitalistic polemic instead suggests he hasn’t read it – how else to explain his blatant non sequitur? In any case climate science isn’t a science but a technologically sophisticated political agenda and the emeritus’ observation that it is being opposed by IPA economic propaganda is an admission that climate science is indeed politics to its core. (Source)