December 19, 2009
Global warming and the 'settled science' baloney
By Claude Sandroff
If you've misspent your youth conducting experiments, taking graduate courses in physics and chemistry, and know something about thermodynamics, molecular spectroscopy, fluid mechanics, modeling data and publishing scientific papers, the current debate over anthropogenic global warming can make you hurl.
While not faulting journalists and politicians for their stupendous ignorance when discussing most scientific subjects, I do condemn their utter lack of coherence concerning basic scientific definitions, processes, and principles.
Specifically, the chattering classes have no appreciation of the following truisms: settled science comes only in the form of physical laws while the causes behind specific phenomena are sometimes never definitively settled. And the more complex the system being observed, the longer it takes to reach a consensus about the causal mechanisms.
Even Al Gore can probably remember being introduced to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion in high school, F=ma. This is usually our first introduction to settled science. That's why it's called a law of physics. It didn't matter that Einstein generalized its form in the theory of relativity or that in the 1920's it had it be replaced with a new mechanics valid at the atomic scale. At velocities small compared to the speed of light and for macroscopic objects, F=ma is settled science.
Despite Al Gore's foolish protestations, there is no law of global warming. To the extent that global warming exists at all, it's a complicated phenomenon with multiple inputs (human and natural), and its cause is speculated upon, but hardly known with certainty. Global warming is unsettled science, and honest investigators use settled laws of physics along with models to try to unravel its origins and implications.
Indeed, most big scientific questions are unsettled, from galaxy formation to the origins of the moon. Closer to home, even 150 years after the first commercial extraction of oil in western Pennsylvania, the mechanism of hydrocarbon formation is still a hotly contested issue. While most petroleum geologists believe that oil and natural gas resulted from the slow anaerobic decomposition of biomass over eons, many others believe that hydrocarbons are an abiotic product of simple chemical reactions in the deep earth crust. The relative numbers of scientists in the two camps do not speak to which explanation is correct. Scientific truth is not decided by polls. Only new experiments, shared, reproducible data and careful modeling can ultimately lead to consensus. But here at least the basic facts are uncorrupted and not in dispute: there is oil and gas in the ground.
To appreciate how unsettled global warming science really is, the book Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery is an indispensible and relentless handbook. Published in 2007 and stuffed with over 500 references, it shatters almost every common global warming myth.
The authors begin by pointing out eight specific "failures of the greenhouse theory" and then bludgeon global warming true believers on almost every page. For Singer and Avery, exhaustive review of the scientific literature, leads to the conclusion that global warming is natural and defined by the 1,500-year solar Dansgaard-Oeschger super cycle. The cumulative effect of the volume is to convince us that man and CO2 have little or nothing to do with the temperature changes observed through human history.
In one of many startling conclusions in the book, Singer argues that increases in CO2 levels throughout recent geologic history, are the result of global warming not the cause. Increases in global temperatures (for extraneous reasons) cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. And there's much, much more debunking.
For a scientifically less dense and more easy-going journey through global warming hysteria, Roy W. Spencer's Climate Confusion is commendable because the author successfully communicates the complexities of climate physics. The complexity is significant enough to make ridiculous the idea of settled science. He shows that water vapor and precipitation are the real drivers of atmospheric heat exchange and temperature changes, with manmade CO2 playing a very minor role.
What these books remind us is that whenever the phrase "settled science" enters a policy debate, especially when complicated planetary effects are involved, an instinctive shudder should rifle through our nervous system. Because almost always that loaded phrase masks an attempt to prematurely force conclusions and end all further argument. Those who want the science settled in a flash are those who will benefit most once the science is settled. Either that or they have something to hide or protect. Settled science is dangerous science.
Galileo had to recant or face death for agreeing with Copernicus and arguing against geocentricity, settled science in 1633. Just 34 years ago settled science was manifest in Newsweek, with the declaration that the world was entering into its latest ice age, and we had better do something now or else we would all starve. Robert Frost's immortal lines from 1920 come to mind: "Some say the world will end in fire/Some say in ice." Apparently, still others can't make up their minds.
With the fundamental scientific ground so shaky in support of anthropomorphic global warming, why does the theory continue to garner exaggerated support? In general, the "warmers" movement, can be grouped neatly into several powerful and well-defined blocs.
Mostly liberal politicians want access to unlimited tax revenues; for scientists and pseudo-scientists global warming victory is a path to prestige and grants; for large corporations it's a billion dollar market for trading in carbon credits, a market pioneered by Enron; for the hard left it's a new path to dictatorial power and control; for venture capitalists like Kleiner Perkins and green start-ups at the public trough, it's a path to alternative energy funding bonanzas; for the radical greens it's equivalent to the unquestioned adherence to a religious faith with analogs to God (the earth), priests (Al Gore), indulgences (carbon offsets), guilt (western affluence) and penance (conservation).
But none of these things can justify or excuse upending our entire financial system or tossing our economic vibrancy, freedom and very sovereignty into the cesspool of global government. That much should be settled fact.