2018-03-13 06:57:18 UTC
One consequence of this is that certain assumptions that are associated with the models have to be concealed, ignored, or effectively dismissed by the people that maintain them. And it is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo. You won't find a meteorologist willing to field questions about or participating in a discussion about the implications of the fact that the boiling temperature of H2O is much higher than that in the ambient environment. They are members of a discipline that is fundamentally obsessed with maintaining its public image. Likewise, you won't find a climatologists willing to discuss the known fact that the overall thermal effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is miniscule compared to H2O.
And so, by appealing to the emotional need of science consumers to believe they understand what they actually don't, the discipline of meteorology (for purposes of its own survival) effectively panders to the lowest common denominator of the science consuming public with dumbed down models that gives some of the more ambitious but equally gullible members of the populace all the ammunition they need to shout down and drown out anybody that points out the parts of their models that are cartoonish nonsense. (Like the surreal belief (superstition) that H2O magically becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures far below its boiling temperature/pressure.)
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes