Craig Bohren interview, experimentalists and theorists

Common sense from a distinguished atmospheric scientist, Craig Bohren, in an interview with USA Today, from a time when the MSM allowed sceptics to speak:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm

“I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic”

“The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don’t do experiments, don’t make observations, don’t even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don’t move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.”

Craig Bohren is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Meteorology at the Pennsylvannia State University. He wrote popular science articles about meteorology and atmospheric science in magazines, from which two excellent books emerged, both published by Wiley:

  • Clouds in a Glass of Beer (1987)
  • What Light Through Yonder Window Breaks (1991)

He has also co-authored an academic textbook on atmospheric thermodynamics.

Experimentalists and Theorists

Craig Bohren was essentially an experimentalist (his popular science books are based around demonstrations), and had a healthy scepticism for the pronouncements of theorists. Climate science would benefit from a clear distinction between those whose expertise lies in measurements and associated data processing, and those whose expertise lies in theoretical explanations; such distinctions work well in fields such as astrophysics and elementary particle physics.

A clear distinction between experimentalists and theorists in climate science would help to avoid papers where the number of snails in a garden are measured over several years and the author attributes any change in the numbers to changes in atmospheric CO2, contributing to the 97% consensus and ensuring further grant money. Please look up the meaning of the word “integrity”, just report the number of snails, leave it up to others to make fools of themselves.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s