Climate Change
If we give science a chance, it will humble us by showing us how little we do know, and it will inspire us by hinting how much there is to know. I think I’ve been pretty careful and clear to describe my frustration with the militant, close-minded attitude that has operated to smack down meaningful scientific inquiry into climate change.
One intriguing theory emerged – that human activity was causing global warming. That theory (1) manifestly fails to coordinate with centuries of observed data concerning solar activity and the Earth’s temperature and (2) stands on untested theoretical underpinnings. That theory, however, became the political flavor of the day. Walls were erected and moats were dug, to protect the theory from challenge.
And that’s when – just like many other antiscience episodes in human history – science was raped by politics. Science is combative. It is about challenging and disproving dogma. Science needs dissent. But, science-as-political-weapon requires the silencing of dissent. Science-as-political-weapon is about wielding “consensus” to bludgeon dissent, in order to achieve political goals.
As I have always been clear to say, global warming might or might not be human caused. It is an intriguing, ingenious. and troubling theory that should be studied. Now, thank heavens and helios, I see a significant sign that the antagonism toward scientific inquiry might be dissipating. NASA states:
According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag. The becalmed solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.
As silly as it seems, acknowledgement that "solar activity has a profound effect on Earth's atmosphere" is a significant step forward. The plain reality is that we haven't scratched the surface to know what that effect is. This solar minimum “has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined,” because it is posing some challenges to the as-yet-untested theory of anthropogenic global warming. Maybe those challenges will be addressed, and the theory will hold. Maybe they won’t be addressed, and the theory won’t hold. As mostly happens in science, the theory -- if science is allowed to work -- likely will be modified, tweaked, revisited, remodified, etc., etc.
It’s a wonderful mystery and a challenge! Along with human causes, let’s please allow all the room necessary to study the effect of solar weather on the Earth’s climate.
One intriguing theory emerged – that human activity was causing global warming. That theory (1) manifestly fails to coordinate with centuries of observed data concerning solar activity and the Earth’s temperature and (2) stands on untested theoretical underpinnings. That theory, however, became the political flavor of the day. Walls were erected and moats were dug, to protect the theory from challenge.
And that’s when – just like many other antiscience episodes in human history – science was raped by politics. Science is combative. It is about challenging and disproving dogma. Science needs dissent. But, science-as-political-weapon requires the silencing of dissent. Science-as-political-weapon is about wielding “consensus” to bludgeon dissent, in order to achieve political goals.
As I have always been clear to say, global warming might or might not be human caused. It is an intriguing, ingenious. and troubling theory that should be studied. Now, thank heavens and helios, I see a significant sign that the antagonism toward scientific inquiry might be dissipating. NASA states:
According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag. The becalmed solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.
As silly as it seems, acknowledgement that "solar activity has a profound effect on Earth's atmosphere" is a significant step forward. The plain reality is that we haven't scratched the surface to know what that effect is. This solar minimum “has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined,” because it is posing some challenges to the as-yet-untested theory of anthropogenic global warming. Maybe those challenges will be addressed, and the theory will hold. Maybe they won’t be addressed, and the theory won’t hold. As mostly happens in science, the theory -- if science is allowed to work -- likely will be modified, tweaked, revisited, remodified, etc., etc.
It’s a wonderful mystery and a challenge! Along with human causes, let’s please allow all the room necessary to study the effect of solar weather on the Earth’s climate.
posted by steve u. at 6/01/2009
Subscribe
6 Comments:
While I like the notion you seem to be promoting here, but as a fairly neutral person on this issue, it's a bit to convenient to accept your idea that advocates of the man-made global warming are the only culprits in downplaying scientific research, and understanding. "Deniers" are just as cuplable in stretching the science to defend their chosen "side" of the issue.
Be realistic in that, or you're only contributing to the lack of understanding.
Well said. Science is widely disregarded.
"Deniers" are just as cuplable in stretching the science to defend their chosen "side" of the issue.
Well said, indeed. These folks have taken the opposite side and built battle lines and moats to correspond to those built by the other side.
Unless I'm mistaken, Steve is not arguing for either side. Nor is he taking taking some kind of middle ground. He is calling for a humble scientific approach as opposed to the hubris of a political approach: the pursuit of truth rather than the pursuit of power. Or perhaps I'm just projecting my own sentiments.
Steve,
I appreciate your courage and common sense in holding to your position. I'm old enough to have seen how some notion or other takes hold in the media and in society and the throngs jump on the bandwagon. When the popularity wanes, for whatever reason, the joiners quietly slip away.
Yes, we can see climate change, but to what do we owe it?
I think your numbered points would be stronger if they were accompanied with supporting data from peer-reviewed scientific sources, among which there seems to be a strong affinity to the human-caused camp. In Gore's movie, he cites a survey in which a HUGE sample (something like 10% of all articles on academic search engines on global warming, if I remember right) of peer-reviewed articles concerning climate change are reviewed and found to all/nearly all support the man-made view. Most of the opposition to this view that I have seen will use a much smaller sample, usually the opinion of one or two scientists, or often even their own observations/witticisms/rhetoric. Whether global warming is in actual fact man made or not, it seems readily apparent that the man-made camp seems to have a much more representative pulse of the scientific community on this issue, and that is something you are going to have to address. Bad research methods strongly correlate with fallacy, fear, and rhetoric, but if faithfully adhered to by those testing each of the hypotheses being presented, objective research leads to truth. That is the scientific method, and shouldn't be feared by those claiming a corner on scientific elucidation while praising such a tradition's virtues.
Anon #3
You said, "objective research leads to truth." This is only true if it's real research. The underlying problem and weakness of the anthropogenic climate change folks is that their so-called objective research depends upon computer models of extremely complex systems with myriad factors. There isn't data for all of this so they simply have to make assumptions about what's missing. I think anyone who ever had a football coach knows the value of assumptions. When the folks who supposedly agree have predictions that are widely variant, it's hard to take the science seriously. I think many things that the greens would propose are reasonable ideas that we should be working toward whether or not man significantly impacts climate change. However, many of the fixes are extremely expensive and will hurt millions, if not billions, worldwide. They especially hurt the poor. Assume China hadn't built dirty coal plants over the last 20 years. The atmosphere would be cleaner (who knows by how mch?) but literally tens of millions of Chinese who now live comfortably would live in poverty. Poverty kills a whole lot more people than dirty air (not that that's a long term solution for dirty air). We simply don't have a body of real science right now to justify a massive re-jiggering of economies worldwide. We have no surfeit of supposition, though.
<< Home