RALEIGH— I like to consider myself a scientist. Perhaps because of all the time I spent earning my degrees. Or because of the publication of my work, in my field of science, in peer-reviewed journals. Or because of the title I hold with my employer. Or maybe just because I cannot consider myself a professional major league baseball player.
The recent release of thousands of documents concerning Global Warming, the incident now refered to as Climategate, has revealed some disturbing practices within the community. As a scientist I am very disappointed.
I am not one to conclude that the “debate is over” concerning most any science. There are very few laws in the realm of science. There are an infinite supply of theories. It is truly sad when a theory has been tossed about so repeatedly that it becomes assumed an undeniable fact. It is even more depressing when the theory is then lifted to the levels of beyond questioning. I cannot think of any theory in science that should be beyond questioning. If this is the status of a theory, further understanding of that theory and further discovery will never be achieved.
The status of Anthropological Global Warming being a case-closed, beyond questioning, theory for temperature levels on this planet is one such example. I have friends whose work is to study the atmosphere and they do not hold that AWG is beyond questioning. I have met with Noble laureates concerning global warming and they do not consider the science, or the theory beyond the realm of questioning.
So I find it greatly disappointing that politicians would boast that a scientific theory is “beyond questioning” and “close the book on debate” in order to push an agenda. Climategate has divided the science from the dogma. The reactions of those who fall on either side are telling in great part to the validity of that side.
Barton Hinkle recently wrote an article entitled “Is Climategate the New Downing Street Memo?“
Despite an overwhelming international consensus among experts alarmed by the mounting evidence of an impending global crisis, a tiny cadre of flat-Earthers continues to insist the urgent problem is nothing but a tissue of lies dreamed up by a nefarious band of power-hungry conspirators.
We’re not talking about climate change. We’re talking about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
It is a wonderful read for those who can allow themselves to disengage from “partisanship” and simply review the situation in context of previous events. The double standards applied to this entire situation are incredible.
In the end I hope this Climategate will result in a more open and transparent review of the theory, the data, and the science behind it. Those who believe the theory is “beyond questioning” should have no issue with such a review since the results should only reaffirm their belief. The hard part will come in the event that the results contradict the assumptions. Will those who hold science above all else yet suggest AWG is beyond questioning be willing to let go of what may very well be a flawed theory in favor of what ever theory replaces it?
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
There are some who appear to have come to regard science as a new religion, and as such are unwilling to depart from doctrine because of their complete faith in the precepts involved.
Add these folks to the gaggle of scam artists and opportunists who see the potential for serious money by fanning the hysteria of “earth’s destruction”, and honest scientific research and debate about “climate change” and its effects has been relegated to a precarious backseat.
How unfortunate, since such a subject should be the focus of reliable exploration and apart from the base politics and avarice that now seem to characterize it.
“Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.
It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.
A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.
Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.
But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.
The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.
All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.
It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.
Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.
Harleigh Kyson Jr.
hykson: Thanks for reading and please subscribe, we’d love to have you here on a regular basis.
quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.
Incorrect. Carbon Dioxide cannot cause the globe to warm. Carbon Dioxide is matter. It is not energy. It does not introduce energy into the system. It does not cause temperatures to increase. It is an atmospheric insulator. It absorbs radiation from the sun, or in other terms, it prevents solar radiation from escaping the atmosphere. It does not cause radiation from the sun. It does not introduce into the environment new radiation. It, in and of itself will not increase temperature. No research as declared as much. The increase in radiant temperature is a result of solar energy. The debate is a matter of more carbon based insulators trapping that energy with in the atmosphere. And from here, how are the majority of these insulating gases being created, human or natural? The overall debate is one in which a scientist must conclude that the most insulating gases are man made and that this is what sustains high temperatures on the surface of this planet. That science is still up for debate. And as a note it must be acknowledged that hydrogen dioxide is the highest radiant energy insulator in the atmosphere. Higher than all carbon based insulators. Secondly, based on the work of Nobel laureate, Dr. Rowland, temperature increases precede increases in “green house” gases. This is very different than the assumption that an increase in “green house” gases precedes temperature increases.
A minority, however, is skeptical
Actually this is not true. No official tally has been conducted, but from my experience in my field of science, the number is 50/50 if not slightly leaning towards “skepticism.”
If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable.
This, in and of itself, is a reason to be skeptical. If a person were to knock on your door and say, “The world will end unless you buy my sweater. There is no time to test my accusation. By the time you get the test results back, the world will be over. Just buy my sweater now and save the planet” you would be within your right and reason to question his assertion.
It cracks me up that Al Gore must see himself as a modern day Noah. Unfortunately he is building no ark to back up his claim. His life style leaves a larger carbon foot print than some countries.
[...] the eve of the global warming summit, stunning revelations about the science underlying the alleged global-catastrophe-in-waiting should have led a pragmatist [...]