Month: May 2007

It has been observed that there is a direct correlation between higher levels of CO2 in the air beginning with the Industrial Revolution some 300 years ago and certain acceleration in Global Warming.

This ?discovery? begat the ?greenhouse effect? theory, which begat the whole Global Warming controversy.

Without asking just how reliable the Earth?s temperature gathering was 300 years ago, if one simply accepts that the one happened due to the other, again there is no scientific way to prove the theory.

It is clear that the Earth has gone through a series of warming and cooling cycles, from the heat and humidity of the dinosaur age to the Ice Age in a geological blink of an eye.

And though there are many theories about why one or the other happened, from volcanoes to smashing asteroids, nobody really knows.

In a court of law, the coincidence of warming and the Industrial Revolution?s CO2 would be termed circumstantial and perhaps inadmissible.

We read that there has been much concern in the Alps recently because they have had the warmest winter ?in 1300 years.? This is presented to us as more proof that the world is warming. It could prove instead that we?ve had a 1300-year cold snap. And if the Alps were really warmer 1300 years ago, a whole millennium before the Industrial Revolution and its CO2, what was the culprit then? Goat farts?

Another perfectly logical explanation for the Earth?s temperature fluctuations is solar activity, fluctuations in the energy radiated to Earth, which have warmed and cooled the planet.

Of course, CO2 aficionados poohpooh this suggestion as a theory with no scientific evidence. But, guys and gals, as we have demonstrated, you have no scientific evidence on your side either. Its either declare a draw, or its pistols at dawn.

So, class, let?s review. There are scientists and there is science. They are different.

Scientists are free to use any technology they want, but unless they can reproduce an outcome using the scientific method, it?s not science.

The Earth may or may not be warming long-term, but the Earth has seen this movie before.

And the sun, not CO2, may or may not be the largest influence on Earth?s climate, but nobody really knows.

Science is a process by which people seek to discover and describe a truth in the physical realm. It?s called the scientific method.

Scientists are a bunch of people specializing in various kinds of exploration using the scientific method to search for physical truths.

The problem here is that when it comes to the environment, the scientific method cannot be used.

The scientific method says that to declare something ?true,? one must create an experiment that replicates theoretical results, like proving E=mc2 by blowing up two perfectly good Japanese cities. Usually there is a control part of the experiment, which does not include a key ingredient of the theory. In the pharmaceutical business, when a drug is tested on one group of people, a similar group of people (the control group) is given a placebo (a sugar pill) to test the difference between getting the drug and not getting the drug. Or in the previous example, dropping a giant goose down pillow on two other perfectly good Japanese cities.

So to ?prove? the notion that A) the world is warming and B) CO2 is the culprit, one would have to take the Earth with its CO2 levels, create an Earth II with capped CO2 levels, let the two Earths spin in space together for a couple hundred years, and then compare the results.

If Earth II showed no temperature increase, and Earth I did, voil??CO2 would be the culprit. If Earth II showed the same temperature increase as Earth I, it would be back to the drawing board.

To date, we know of no Earth II being built. So the scientific method is off the table.

What is being used in our quest for the truth about Global Warming and CO2? Well, for the most part, computer models. And let us state here as clearly as possible that it may be scientists using computer models, but computer models are not science. They are a technological tool.

And while computer models are important technological tools, they are far from infallible. They require a whole list of assumptions that make them unreliable, especially when applied to something as complex as weather. All you have to do is watch the weather report on TV, and you will witness forecasters using three or four different computer models, each showing a different prediction, and then splitting the difference in their forecast. And this is for what?s going to happen tomorrow.

These same sorts of computer models promised us a disastrous 2006 hurricane season. Didn?t happen.

So for these scientists to use their computer models to tell us what will happen in thirty-five or fifty years is, if not mendacious, highly suspect. Remember, thirty years ago Time Magazine reported that scientists (probably the fathers of the current batch) were predicting a new Ice Age, and we were all going to die.

Once a scientist steps away from the cover of the scientific method and its demonstrable physical facts, he is just as liable to be as full of baloney as the guy who bends pipe down at Muffler King.