Willis Eschenbach asked a number of questions of climate scientists at this thread on WUWT. I’m not a ‘climate scientist’ but the questions are fun, and those of us who are not climate scientists can form informed opinions on these. On the WUWT thread, climate scientists are invited to answer, here, anyone who considers themselves to have an informed opinion can answer. Or just pick one and let it fly.
My guess is that the advocacy crowd will be a bit surprised by our makeup. Feel free to ignore my answers and put down your own.
Preface Question 1. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
— I don’tlike the word environmentalist because it’s been co opted by people with political agendas that go against the good of humanity and the environment. Of course I understand and support the need for minimal human impact, however our policies have gone way past reasonable in far too many instances. Forest management policies which end up promoting vast wildfires are a great example. I own a green company and spend more time outdoors than most. Our favorite vacation is camping — rustic tent style — where we spend our time having a minimal impact on the environment around us.
Preface Question 2. What single word would you choose to describe your position on climate science?
Skeptic – I’m skeptical that there is enough information of high enough quality to answer the key questions about man’s influence on climate. I lean toward a denier of measurable man made change as of late primarily because of the corruption of the science seen here and elsewhere over the last year and a half.
Question 1. Does the earth have a preferred temperature which is actively maintained by the climate system?
An odd question in my opinion, it has two separable parts. The answer to the preferred temperature portion is no. There is no preferred temperature for earth. There is a preferred temperature for humans, and a preferred temperature range for economic success. The most disasterous thing that can happen to the Earths environment is another ice age and it’s not a question of will it happen but when will it happen.
Part II is more interesting, it discusses active maintenance – of course active is a term of art for engineers so I read the question as— is there an active feedback loop. Does some part of the climate system actively respond to an increase in temperature with a negative feedback? This is a difficult question. In my opinion it only makes sense that this mechanism must exist because the Earths climate is far too stable for too great a time to be an open loop zero feedback system. However, my belief in the likelihood of this (and belief is the right word) is based only on the fact that nothing in nature happens by accident. It’s odd to find a round rock perched on the side of a hill. Quantum physics is defined by probability yes, but by accident no.
If I answer is just cold and scientific, nobody really knows the magnitude of the feedbacks that exist.
Question 2. Regarding human effects on climate, what is the null hypothesis?
NA – Willis’s answer is fine.
Question 3. What observations tend to support or reject the null hypothesis?
I’ve seen no evidence to support that temperatures are outside of normal variation in any way whatsoever. I’ve seen no evidence that temperature changes have affected any portion of the environment in an unusual manner whatsoever. In the past these claims were fun, now it disgusts me when we see news reports of one disaster or another. Attributing Katrina to AGW is a great example.
