Summary of Bad Storms, Bad Science
(In which the conclusion is foregone) Heather Heying
See: Bad Storms, Bad Science
In which the conclusion is foregone
Oct 22, 2024
In Heather Heying's article "Bad Storms, Bad Science," she critiques the conclusions drawn by certain climate studies, particularly those surrounding Hurricane Milton, as presented in Forbes' "Current Climate" newsletter. The article begins with Heying reflecting on her own morning routine, notably her error of checking her email first thing in the day. This led her to receive the Forbes newsletter, which attributes the severity of Hurricane Milton to climate change. The newsletter references the World Weather Attribution study, which claims that storms like Milton have become more intense due to human-induced climate change.
Heying challenges the scientific rigor of such claims. She critiques the heavy reliance on models, pointing out that while models can be useful, they are not empirical data. The core of her argument lies in the assumption of anthropogenic climate change (human-caused) as the primary driver of the increased intensity of storms. Heying argues that this assumption is not critically examined but rather presented as an indisputable conclusion. She emphasizes that while the models suggest a correlation between higher temperatures and more severe storms, they fail to demonstrate clear evidence for the human-induced nature of these temperature changes.
Heying expresses skepticism about modern climate science, suggesting that much of it is conclusion-driven rather than evidence-based. She criticizes how scientific findings are often presented in a way that leads readers to believe in a single explanation—anthropogenic climate change—without considering other possible factors. She acknowledges that human activities might impact the climate but argues that other forces likely play a role as well, and the exclusion of these alternatives undermines the integrity of the scientific analysis.
The article concludes with Heying lamenting the state of modern science, suggesting that much of what is now called "science" is instead a form of propaganda. She contrasts this with real science, which should remain open to multiple hypotheses and explanations. Finally, she recounts her experience of finding solace in nature, which helped mitigate the frustration brought on by her exposure to what she considers faulty scientific discourse.
In summary, Heying critiques the modern trend of using climate models to support predetermined conclusions about climate change, emphasizing the need for more robust and open scientific inquiry.