BILL CLINTON declared last week that Americans “look like a joke’’ because leading Republican presidential contenders decline to embrace the agenda of the global-warming alarmists. Presumably he had in mind Texas Governor Rick Perry, who says that “global warming has been politicized’’ and calls claims of a decisive human role in climate change an unproven theory . “You can’t win the nomination of a major political party in the US,’’ fumed the former president, “unless you deny science?’’
To which Marc Morano, publisher of the irreverently skeptical website Climate Depot , promptly replied: “Bill is correct! No Democratic presidential candidate could get the nomination unless they deny the large role that natural variability plays in climate.’’
In truth, global-warming alarmism is not science at all — not in the way that electromagnetic radiation or the laws of planetary motion or molecular biology is science. Catastrophic climate change is an interpretation of certain scientific data, an interpretation based on theories about the causes and effects of growing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is not “denying science’’ to have doubts about the correctness of that interpretation any more than it is “denying economics’’ to have doubts about the efficacy of Kenyesian pump-priming.
You don’t have to look far to see that impeccable scientific standards can go hand-in-hand with skepticism about global warming. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel laureate in physics , resigned this month as a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS) to protest the organization’s official position that evidence of manmade climate change is “incontrovertible’’ and cause for alarm. In an e-mail explaining his resignation , Giaever challenged the view that any scientific assertion is so sacred that it cannot be contested.
“In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves,’’ Giaever wrote, incredulous, “but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?’’
Nor does Giaever share the society’s view that carbon emissions threaten “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security, and human health.’’ In fact, the very concept of a “global’’ temperature is one he questions:
“The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degrees Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming’ period.’’
By now, only ideologues and political propagandists insist that all reputable scientists agree on the human responsibility for climate change. Even within the American Physical Society, the editor of “Physics and Society’’ (an APS publication) has acknowledged that “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree . . . that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are . . . primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.’’
No scientific theory can ever be “proven” beyond any doubt. Even gravity is “just a theory”, but defy it at your peril! The science behind AGW is compelling. There is a “preponderance of evidence”, if you will. Even in our legal system we convict beyond “reasonable doubt”, not beyond “any doubt”. So, sure, you can find some doubters. Prominent sceptics (e.g. Michaels) admit CO2 and other GHG are adding to the warming trend – they just dispute that the future trajectory will be catastrophic. The stakes are pretty high if he’s wrong – inundation of coastal areas would cost $trillions, to name just one of many potential problems. We spent a lot more to defend against hypothetical threats that have a lot less chance of coming to pass, and that would be far less damaging. So, really, how much of a probability do you need to assign to this one before it’s worth some action? Many people concerned about the problem are not “alarmists” – Geoff Styles (who writes an excellent energy blog) considers himself a “warner”, as do I.
“…climate change is an interpretation of certain scientific data, an interpretation based on theories about the causes and effects of growing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is not “denying science’’ to have doubts about the correctness of that interpretation any more than it is “denying economics’’ to have doubts about the efficacy of Kenyesian pump-priming.”
This statement describes the nature of all science. Newton’s Laws have, and still do, served us well over the past centuries, but there were always certain events—namely with regard to some motion of the planets—which they could not explain. Then Einstein and Hawkins came along with some ideas which explained these inconsistencies. But we didn’t disregard Newton’s Laws because not right all the time—the laws still provided a simple, useful method of providing certain calculations accurately.
Now, the result of tests at CERN are suggesting that Einstein’s thesis that nothing can travel faster than light without becoming infinite may not be true. This may have certain consequence for science, but doesn’t mean we’re going to discard Einstinian calculations as a whole.
Similarly, climate change theorist are constantly honing their science in light of new information. But, science is not absolute like religion. Similarly, you can’t make accurate, testable, and replicable hypotheses with religious statements. At this point, the vast majority of climate scientist agree that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition that over the centuries, CO2 (as well as other toxic chemicals) have been accumulating in the atmosphere, having a deterrent effect on the planet.
There’s a difference between having doubts about Keynesian Economic, and having doubts about Climate Change. The former is a less predictable science (so much so that many scientists don’t refer to it as science), while the later is based of a body of science that has proven its efficacy by rendering testable, observable predictions in non-related situations. There are always going to be people have opinions contrary to prevailing scientific opinion. But their evidence always seems to be lacking. However, maybe they’re right–a broken clock is right two time per day.
Global warming has little to do with Science and more to do with politics. Sadly Democrats and the MSM have taken this issue to a rediculous position. Seems like a non issue for the next election cycle, as it should be.
BZZZT! WRONG!
Information is proving otherwise and has been for some time that the “researchers” pushing AGW have been using corrupted data and wildly inaccurate computer models to reach their conclusions.
Much of the proof of this has been posted here. It seems keeping an open mind really means that one should mindlessly accept whatever “data” supports a liberal viewpoint.
What the CIA knows about climate change, they’re not telling.
BTW, it’s still the consensus among an overwhelming majority of climate scientists that the planet is warming, and that human activity an important contributing factor. The percentage that disagree is miniscule:
Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change
The scientific opinion hasn’t changed. What has changed is public opinion, as the result of a well-funded propaganda and disinformation campaign.
You might convince the public that cigarettes are good for you with a sufficiently well-funded propaganda effort, but that won’t change the fact that smoking kills over 400,ooo Americans per year.
@Greg: Greg, nice try. Please go back to your first grade recess they must be missing you and your humorous ananlogies. BTW slick willy didn’t inhale either.
Good grief! Greg, did you read any of the comments on the link you posted? Apparently not! If you had you’d see that no one over there is buying it either.
@tibby, #8:
Readers comments don’t alter what has been reported in the article–namely, that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are most knowledgeable concerning the topic share the opinion that the planet is getting warmer, and that human activity is a contributing factor. As several point out in those comments, whether the public at large is “buying it” or not is totally irrelevant to the reality of the situation.
Unfortunately, public opinion isn’t irrelevant when it comes to responding to what scientists have observed. Civilization may eventually succumb to collective human stupidity. After thousands of years, we still haven’t figured out how to stop the excessively assertive idiots among us from organizing periodic episodes of mass murder. The prospect of getting them to cooperate on anything constructive is probably to much to expect.
Once again, you’ve either missed the point, or more likely are ignoring it. The commenters aren’t buying it because they, unlike you, realize that science is never settled. They have taken into account all the data, not just the data they want to hear. There are always questions. And a true scientist doesn’t ignore or fudge data because the facts don’t align the way they hope or expect. They continue to search for the truth, regardless of what that truth may be. I read the article you posted because of that, I am open to different opinions, and data, because I want to know. I have a lot more respect for open mindedness than I do for close mindedness, close mindedness is lazy, use that brain! I would hope you would open up your mind and really look at the whole picture, but I don’t expect it. And while I’ll read it, I’m not going to reply to anything else you post, because I don’t like to bang my brains against walls. (I use’em, they are precious to me.)
@tibby, #10:
You seem to be under the impression that a consensus exists with regard to the readers’ opinions about the article itself. In fact, the opinions expressed by the readers vary considerably. I haven’t counted them up, but the split seem fairly even.