Your profound mistrust of science is exceeded only by your misunderstanding of it.
You've got that the wrong way round. It's precisely
because I have a profound faith in the methodology of science that I am deeply disturbed by the dishonest politicization of the science of climate change and the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of so many in the population.
As for climate science and the various fields of scientific research which are incorporated into it, like all fields of science there is much that is unknown and yet to be learned and discovered. That's what makes science so fascinating and exciting for those engaged in it.
Absolutely! I'm fascinated with many aspects of science. When the scare about the effects of rising emissions of CO2 began to appear in the media, and climate scientists such as Michael Mann, James Hansen and James Lovelock were interviewed by the media, expressing their concerns about the disastrous consequences of climate change if we didn't reduce our CO2 emissions, I accepted such claims. Why would I not? I have a great respect for science, and I knew very little about climatology at that time.
However, as a result of my general interest in science and my great respect for the 'methodology of science', I began doing internet searches to find answers to some puzzling issues that were never raised during the media interviews of climate scientists.
I'll mention just one issue, to keep my post brief, but there are many issues which caused me to change my mind as a result of my own investigations. The first, as I recall, was the scare about ocean acidification. I already understood that CO2 dissolves in water to produce Carbonic Acid, which is a weak acid. Even natural rain contains Carbonic Acid.
But what I didn't know was the average pH of the oceans. Were the oceans neutral, or slightly acidic, or slightly alkaline? I understood quite well that the term 'acidification' meant 'becoming more acidic', and that 'less alkaline' is equivalent to 'more acidic'.
However, I was rather puzzled that prominent scientists, being interviewed to inform the public about the effects of increased CO2 on the oceans, would not even bother to mention such fundamental facts as the estimated pH of the oceans at the starting point of the increase in CO2 emissions, at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and whether the current state of the oceans was acidic, neutral, or alkaline.
After my investigations, including Google Scholar, it became very clear why such scientists never mentioned these fundamental details.
To do so would have reduced the alarmism. The average pH of the ocean surfaces, just a few metres in depth, has fallen from just 8.2 to 8.1, during the past 150 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral. Above 7 is alkaline, and below 7 is acidic.
The pH scale is logarithmic and inversely indicates the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution. A lower pH indicates a higher concentration of hydrogen ions.
What's even more significant is that the pH of the oceans varies by more than 0.1 pH, according to the season of the year and the location of the ocean, and varies by very much more than 0.1 pH according to the depth of the ocean. Ocean waters are continually upwelling and downwelling, causing changes in pH.
Alarmists sometimes respond to such scientific facts by claiming that a reduction of alkalinity from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 represents a 30% increase in acidity, which sounds alarming of course, and most scientifically illiterate people might assume that means we are almost 1/3rd of the way towards a neutral ocean.
However, a change from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 is actually a 26% increase in acidity. But let's not quibble about such small differences of 26 or 30%. The main point, which reveals the deception of the alarmists, is that a change in pH from 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline,
is represented by a 900% increase in acidity.
Refer attached image from NOAA.
If anyone is interested in the truth about your quote from the 1996 article. Professor Stephen H. Schneider wrote a reply to the publisher complete with footnotes. Since you have attributed a quote to him, it would be useful to have his full thoughts on the matter. It can be found here... https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm
I've read the article, and this is what Stephen Schneider said before repeating his full quote.
"During the TV debate, months before Simon's APS News article appeared, I pointed out that he was taking only part of the full quote and that part was seriously out of context - this is the same source he "quoted" in APS News. The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions of it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed to me in the APS News article:""On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."This quote, above, minus the part in bold, is the exact quote that I presented in my previous post.
I don't expect you to reply because it's clear I have successfully debunked your alarmists arguments, and it must be very upsetting for you.
