See yesterday's entries for parts I and II.
When I left off, I was explaining how environmentalists had pretty much failed to make a leftist issue out of man's effect on climate during the global COOLING years before 1970 (the end of a 30 year cooling period from approximately 1940 to 1970).
However, in the years after 1970, leftist envrionmentalists began to see the POLITICAL potential in the newly developing hypothesis of greenhouse gas emissions creating global WARMING. Now this idea could hardly gain any traction while the Earth was COOLING (althong some people were actually bringing up the warming effect of greenhouse gases even as most people were still talking about global cooling--see the entry in the archives about the poor guy in Alaska who was attacked for questioning whether the Earth could really cool that much, when we were putting more greenhaouse gases into the atmosphere, and then was attacked for questioning--now--whether global warming is being overhyped; talk about not being able to win!!!).
Now this vague concept of greenhouse gases causing material warming of the Earth's atmosphere has a lot of problems. First, there is NO mathematical theory as to exactly how this occurs, as there is with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and with quantum mechanics. The very thing that makes this concept of "global warming" possible to argue, which is that there is NO real "theory" of atmospheric physics that purports to really explain, in detail, how our atmosphere and climate works, means that there was NO "predictive", comprehensive, mathematically convincing, "theory" of "global warming" You just had the vague concept that greenhouse gases have a warming effect (as does warming your house in the winter, or merely existing as your body puts out heat--see previous parts).
There was still the problem of explaining how this warming effect was any more significant, in comparison with the SUN, than the obviously insignificant warming effect of heat directly prodcued every time we use electricity (light bulbs, and electric or electronic devices are WARM, but put out little heat in comparison with the SUN). There was also still the problem of explaining the COOLING from 1940 to 1970, when greenhouses gas emissions were clearly rising. Obviously there is something wrong with the idea that greenhouse gas emissions automatically mean a steadily increasing temperature.
Then a funny thing happened. The Earth DID "warm". By 1980, a warming trend in the average temperatures of the Earth was pretty clear. We still had no real explanation for the COOLING from 1940 to 1970, and the Earth has clearly warmed before without man being the cause, but still there was a warming trend. Now since there were hardly any rigorous mathematical predictiions of how much the Earth was supposed to warm, with greenhouse gases, or any rigorous mathematical theories as to the relative effects of the SUN, greenhouse gases, and other factors on temperature and climate, this was hardly a true confiramtion of the "predictions" of "global warming" "theory". It was, however, certainlyl worth scientific investigation.
In the ordinary process of the scientific method, scientists would have expanded the vague hypothesis of "global warming" into more rigorous theories, with more exact predictions, and then TESTED the predictions of those theories (skpetically). At the normal pace of "science", that process would have just been substantially BEGUN by now. After all, there was NO evidence for "flobal warming" before 1970, as the world had been COOLING, and a few years of a warming trend hardly proved anything. But the whole, normal progress of the scientific method was short circuited.
By 1980, and certainly by 1990, environmentalists were already DEMANDING that "global warmng" be accepted as a FACT. By 2000, of course, these demands were becoming almost hysterical, and have been escalating since then. This has nothing to do wtih the ordinary progress of the scientific method, and everything to do with POLITICAL ORTHODOXY.
As Michael Crichton has pointed out in his Appendix to "State of Fear", scientific careers suddenly became dependent on accepting "global warming" as true. It becamse easy to get grants for research to SUPPORT "global warming". If you came out against "global warming", your career suddenly stalled, and grants became hard to get. This was especially true at our increasingly leftist universities, where most basic scientific research is done. See yesterday's entry as to the "PUNISHMENT" Colorado State University is imposing on hurricane forecaster William Gray for his heresy on (criticism of) "global warming".
Let us be frank here. Scientists are human beings. See Watson and Crick's book on the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The "scientific method" presumes skeptical scientists continually testing theories. In actual practice, scientists inevitably have a vested interest in their own theories, which is why theories are not accepted (in the usual course of how "science" is supposed to work) until INDEPENDENTLY verified by the work of other scientists without a vested interest in the result. Here, almost AlL scientists had a vested interest in the results on "global warming". Their careers depened on it. Even if their "science" was performed rigorously, they hedged the CONCLSIONS/summaries to present them in the most favorable light possible for the "global warmng" orthodoxy.
Yes, you couls say that scientists sold their souls, or you could say that they sold out for 30 pieces of silver. Oh, I admit that is too harsh. Scientists, as I said, are human beings. The leftist environmentalists have been able to put EXTREME pressure on scientists. Further, there is no doubt that many scientists themselves are emotionally invested in "global warming". What you have ended up with is a total collapse of the scientific method, as scientists (especially as their work was publicized) did everything they could to contribute to the PROGAGANDA of "global warmng". Gone was the skeptical ideal of the scientific method, where the idea is to CHALLENGE theories to see if they really are valid.
"Glboal warming" was supposed to be too "important" for skepticism. What if the evironmentalists were right (the standard FEAR card that environmentalists have tried to play on everything from oil drilling to nuclear power for about 50 years). The WORLD IS AT STAKE. The end justifies the means. Who cares if the scientific method is fudged., or short circuited. As Al Gore said, this is a MORAL and SPIRITUAL issue--not just a scientific one.
For those who wonder why I don't accept the "science" of "global warming", you only have to read the previous paragraph again. It is Lysenkoism all over again. "Science" is being controlled by POLITICAL orthodoxy. How can you believe "science" produced like that---especially when most of it makes little sense. This is besides the fact the most "global warming" propaganda goes WAY beyond what "science" there is.
For example, there remains NO "science" connecting "gobal warming" with severe storms, or any particular weather events. In fact, despite the deliberately POLITICAL change from "global warmng' to the ridiculous "climate change", there is NO comprehensive "theory" of climate. We still have no convincing mathematical model of how our atmosphere works. We STILL cannot accurately predict the climate OR temperature of NEXT MONTH, or NEXT YEAR, and yet "global warming" fanatics insist that they can predict the next 100 years. This is NOT "science".
How does "global warmng" arrive at its predictions? We still have NO mathematical model that accurately predicts the energy we receive from the SUN. We still have no mathematical model showing how clouds and precipitation affect climate and temperature. We still have no mathematicl model as to the amount of reflecting particles in the atmosphere, or of expected volcanic activity (where ONE Krakatoa could completely destroy "global warmng" predictions, which have proven WRONG anyway). So HOW does "global warmng" predict things?
Well, it doesn't (successfully). But the way it TIRES to predict whatever vague things it tries to predict tells you how unscientific the whole thing really is. What we really have are COMPUTER MODELS. Those models essentially assume that things like the energy from the sun are CONSTANTS (don't vary, which is absolutely untrue). In other words, the only significant vairable on the models is the amount of greenhouse gases. Then it is ASSUMED that the recent warming of the Earth (1970 to 1998) will continue at the same relationship to the further increase in greenhouse gases as it did during that period of demonstrated warming. In other words, the ASSUMPTIONS determine the resutlf os the models, which basically (with some bells and whistles) do nothing more than assune that the "warming" will continue at the same rate into the future as it has for the period 1970 to 1998 (taking into account an INCREASED rate becaus of an increase in the rate we are emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Garbage in, garbage out. There is NO "comprehensive", mathematical theory of atmospheric physics behind this. It is basically nothing more that assuming that the trends of the one 30 year period (ignoring the previous 30 year period) will continue into the future (adding things like sea level rises which have NOT been shown to have yet occurred). A sixth graderr could do the "math". Special Relativity, or quantum mechanics, it ain't.
And it has ENDED. This idea of a defined trend of "global warming" correlating to world temperature rises has been proven FALSE.
Remember those satellite measurements of that myhtical "temperature" of the Earth (there were, of course, no satellite mesurements for comparison for, say, 1936). Well, 1998 was the WARMEST year. We have COOLED since 1998. Plus, there has been a total plateau in world temperatures since about 2002. We are NO LONGER WARMING (whether caused by man or not--a fact which indicates the prior warming was NOT caused by man, as greenhouse gases have continued to increase). U.N. climate people have already predicted that 2008 will be COOLER than 2007, as far as world temperatures are concerned--allegedly because of cooler currents in the Pacific ocean. NASA has released data from 3,000 ocean robots indicating that the temperature of the world's oceans has not risen in FOUR YEARS.
Did "global warming" predict any of this? Of course not.
So where are the headlines screaming that "global warming" has been DISCREDITED? Oh, there have been drips and dibbles of this news (see this blog). But the "global warming" propaganda continues as if "global warming" still had a claim to being BEYOND ARGUMENT>
This is a total breakdown of the skeptical, scientific method. Scientiests should be falling all over themselves to develop NEW theories, and test them, as to the fact that the warming of the Earth appears to have STOPPED. Maybe somre are, but don't hold your breath. The mere mention by a scientist (see William Gray) of skepticism on "global warmng" puts his or her career at risk.
Yes, all three Presidential candidates (those left) have bought into this "global warming" scam, to the point of advocating policies that will likely RUIN our presently struggling economy, as we crucify our economy on a cross of "global warming" (apologies to William Jennings Bryan).
Thee was more news today about a spokesmand for onte of those "institutes" recommending thatwe STOP promoting the use of food based biofuels (which arose out of the scam of "global warmign"), because we are taking the food out of the mouths of ONE BILLION PEOPLE.
Sometimes, leftist environmentalists ask: "What harm can it do to protect the environment, even if it turns out that 'global warming' is a scam" (my word here, obviously). THATT is the harm it can do. It can RUIN our economy, and our standard of living. It can result in the STARVATION of a billion people or more. And that is just the beginning.
It can destroy the rainforests (biofuels again). It can introduce more mercury into our water (compact florescent bulbs, which Congress is virtually forcing us to use by 2012). It can raise the COST of almost everything.
I am confident that human beings, and the Earth, can survive increases in greenhouse gases. I am not so confident that we can survive ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
As I said at the beginning, political orthodoxy is the antithesis of the scientific method (which is the true meaning of "science"). It is because we have abandoned "science" (the skepticism of the scienitific method that is at the core of "science") that we have reached this point. As Shakespeare (I believe) said: "The fault in not in the stars, but in ourselves."
Or maybe Pogo put it better: "We have met the enemy, and it is us" Leftist environmentalists would not be able to pervert science this way, nor would the mainstream media be able to get away with propaganda, unless we let them.
No comments:
Post a Comment