ElsevierSummary
Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive hatchet jobs may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a zombie science evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.
Charlton was not talking about AGW but his observations fit many aspects of the warmists' version of climate science. Taboos, appeals to authority and distortion of data to support confirmation bias simply abound in the annals of CO2 caused global warming.
Two quotes from R.P. Feynman-
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you 'play' with them!
The main problem (as I see it) with AGW is that it does not describe reality by its main thesis, that small thermal increases caused by manmade CO2 set off a cascade of positive feedbacks which lead to large increases of temperature and eventual catastrophy. Computer models are their only 'proof', and the computer models totally fail at projecting where and how the warming is taking place. The imput for the models are loose approximations for the factors that they do consider, and ignorance (ignoring) of the factors that are too complex or poorly understood. Even their choice of considering water vapour and clouds as a positive feedback (only) is ridiculous at its face because water has been mediating force that has kept the earth at moderate temperatures since it formed!
More study needs to be done on the other climate influences, such as the solar impact, cloud systems, etc. And it should be done as separate factors, not as peripheral to CO2.
Hell, even the crazy hungarian Miskolczi has a better theory than the IPCC gang-
DailyTech - Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"Equilibrium
In order to correctly understand why this is, it is necessary to recognize that what is important here is the equilibrium between the incoming energy from the sun (heating) and the outgoing longwave (infra red) energy (cooling). The 40 percent of the planet that is not cloud-covered at any given time allows for solar radiation to be absorbed at the surface. The most effective form of cooling is the evaporation of water, which takes heat energy from the surface and puts it into the air. Clouds form, which do three things: 1) create more cloud cover reflecting solar radiation away from the planet which also 2) release heat into the very high upper atmosphere where it is also radiated out into space as the clouds condense into precipitation, and 3) drops much cooler water back down to the surface cooling things even further. This is an oversimplification for the sake of brevity and clarity, the interactions here are very complex as is the equation which describes it. However, this does not change the simple fact that our planetary climate system is at equilibrium, and the Miskolczi Constant allows science to completely describe that equilibrium. For the first time, we can do so accurately with raw data, and match observed data with the results. No hide the decline is needed when simply describing reality.
Climate scientist and fellow Hungarian, Dr. Miklos Zagoni, in his paper CO2 Cannot Cause any more Global Warming dated December 2009 describes this discovery and its meaning. Dr. Zagoni beautifully sums it up all up:
Since the Earths atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.
Dr. Zagoni explains:
Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.
At least he can derive temperatures from first principles rather than needing to constantly recalibrate the input data to give a reasonable answer like they have to do with computer climate models.