Articles by Andrew Dessler

If a single new result clashes with the consensus, it’s wise to doubt it

Science is a collective, multi-layered process consisting of three steps. First is the individual scientist testing hypotheses according to the norms of their field. Second, the results of the individual scientist undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate. At this point a result may be considered preliminary, but not proven.

Third, important claims are then re-tested in the "crucible of science" -- they are either reproduced by independent scientific groups or they have their implications tested to insure consistency with the existing body of scientific knowledge. After enough tests/reproductions, a consensus emerges that the idea is correct.

Carbon trading vs. carbon taxes on Science Friday

The question of climate change has finally moved on from is it happening? to what should we do about it?.

There has been some great discussion here at Grist on carbon trading vs. carbon taxes (e.g., here or here).

For those who want more, Bill Chameides, chief scientist of Environmental Defense, was on Science Friday to talk about carbon trading. Check out the mp3 here.

Bill basically reiterates the points he made here on Gristmill a while back. But it's still worth listening to.

Debunking the ‘water vapor’ nonsense

On March 8, the Newport Daily News published a commentary that recycled one of the stalest skeptical arguments around: because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide must be unimportant.

This is incorrect, of course, and has been debunked on several blogs (e.g., here).

In response to this, my colleague Chris Reddy and I wrote this response, published March 16:

What should be the cost of skepticism?

Every few months, it seems, someone comes out with the great idea about how people who are wrong in the climate-change debate should have something really bad done to them. Who can forget our very own David's, ahem, indiscretion? Or Heidi Cullen and her suggestion to strip skeptical meteorologists of their AMS credentials?

Over on Roger Pielke Sr.'s Climate Science blog, guest blogger Hendrik Tennekes suggests some tit-for-tat:

More than once I have dreamed of regulations that would cut the retirement pay of climate modelers in half if their forecasts proved off the mark at their retirement. Such an arrangement would also help them keep their feet on the ground concerning the prediction horizon of climate scenarios.

What's interesting is Tennekes doesn't mention what should happen to scientists who claim that climate change is not happening, yet turn out to be wrong. Perhaps they should have their retirement taken away, too?