Vitriol Against “Virtual Science” Sunday, Dec 23 2007
Science and the Public 4:01 am
This opinion piece appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday:
It argues against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the grounds that a lot of what we say we know about climate change is based on theoretical modelling.
I submitted this letter to the editor, which may or may not appear:
I read Michael Duffy’s article “However virtuous, virtual science is no substitute for the real thing” (Herald, December 22) with dismay. Rather than advocating “real science” (which he leaves undefined) he seems to have done nothing more than reveal his own ignorance about how science works.
The whole point of mathematical modelling is to calculate the predictions of a model. If you don’t know what the predictions of a model are, there is no way to test it against reality. And if you blindly make observations with no models in mind, the observations are pointless because they do not tell you anything.
It’s true there are models that make incorrect predictions. Great! That increases our state of knowledge. But if Michael Duffy is sitting on some compelling evidence that the IPCC’s conclusions regarding global warming are wrong, perhaps he should submit them to a real scientific journal, rather than trying to manipulate the opinions of the uninformed through misleading articles in newspapers.
December 23, 2007 at 5:58 am
Hi Brendon,
I agree fully with your comments regarding Michael Duffy. With some regret I have listened to his ‘Counterpoint’ program on ABC Radio National, where it is most noticeable that anything relating to the environment is subjected to unbelievable misinformation if not antagonistic redneck ranting. Consequently, Michael Duffy has in my opinion, lost all credibility when discussing this subject.
It would be interesting to know the reason for his attitude; it may be ignorance, but I suspect it is more likely he was dropped on his head when a baby by a nature lover and has never gotten over it.
Regards
Jack
December 24, 2007 at 11:02 am
Ooh, it got short listed for boxing day. My success rate in previous short-listed letters has been 5 out of 5, so I’m pretty confident. The probability is 6/7 according to Laplace’s rule of succession.
December 31, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Did your letter make it through, Brendon? I think Letters to the Editor have attained higher status since the advent of ‘Have Your Say’ sections on big media websites, which seem to function as an outlet valve for passionate, imbalanced and usually under-informed ranting, which I contrast with the article to which you were responding.
January 1, 2008 at 2:09 am
Hi Berian,
Yes, it was published, along with a similar letter by another writer. I didn’t check the following day’s letters to see if there was any follow up.
I rarely comment on the post-article “comment” things they have on news sites these days. You are right about the quality of the posts there.