I can’t count how many times I have heard the assertion about how stupid and anti-science those of us who are skeptical of the global warming edifice are. Invariably this is followed by a statement of how settled the science is, and how uniform scientists are in accepting the truth of the global warming hypothesis. The statistic that “97% of scientists agree with global warming” is frequently trotted out as evidence. I mean how stupid and wrong can we be in the face of 97% of scientists? In reality this argument itself shines a light on the utter lack of understanding of science and the scientific method by those making this arguement.
Following the scientific method, it matters not a bit how many individuals, scientists, wise men or fools believe in the global warming hypothesis. Any hypothesis is valid or not based on objective evidence that either supports the hypothesis or contradicts it. This evidence is supposed to be produced through fully described and repeatable experiments or analysis - not on voting or a popularity contest. Even if every man woman and child on the planet believed in global warming this would not make the hypothesis more or less valid - human belief is not evidence. So can we please stop the arguments using numbers of supporters and go to the evidence? Claiming validity for a hypothesis based on who or how many support it is totally dogmatic and the exact opposite of the scientific method. And by the way in science, nothing is ever “settled” and one contrary fact that cannot be reconciled uproots and invalidates even the most favored and established theory.
It may surprise you, but many of us who are skeptics about global warming are actually interested in the data and are willing to go where the data leads. Unfortunately as we have seen from Climate-Gate and other scandals about the IPCC reports there are questions regarding the validity of the data from the proponents of the global warming hypothesis, questions that should cause any open minded inquirer to have some skepticism. Leaving aside for a moment the actual validity of the hypothesis it would be just dishonest not to accept that some of the proponents of global warming engaged in very un-scientific behavior that smells much more of advocacy than science. An honest scientist is deeply skeptical of their own findings and aggressively seeks to have his or her results data and methods fully reviewed by critics. This is exactly what the Climate-Gate scientists fought against.
The other interesting observation that causes me to be very skeptical is the treatment of those who do bring forth contrary data that undermines the conclusions of the orthodoxy that support the global warming hypothesis. Invariably these scientists are attacked personally. They are called shill’s for the oil companies or worse and are dismissed. Note that their data is frequently not the target, they are. It is typically claimed they are subverted by money interests. In many cases such scientists are subjected to reprisals or censorship for having the temerity to challenging the global warming premise. Scientists from within the orthodoxy who receive massive funding to develop data supportive of their positions are never challenged on their financial interests, and even when found acting in the most dishonest ways are protected and shielded from censure and dismissal. The non-scientist Al Gore whose film was found by British courts to contain many factual errors has reportedly become a billionaire from profits off of what I consider to be “green scams”, but he is still revered even though he won’t debate anyone on the topic.
Lastly there is more to the discussion than just the truth or falsehood regarding the global warming hypothesis. Even if the hypothesis that manmade CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise is true, it is not clear at all that we should do anything, or at least anything as radical as many global warning proposals. There is a whole causal chain that must be established before it is clear we should act. Let me play the whole chain out:
1. It must be proven scientifically that manmade CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm.
2. It must be proven scientifically that the rate of temperature increase will lead to human catastrophe. (This alone is hugely debatable, since if temperatures do rise there will be winners and losers, and historically human-kind and the biosphere do better in warm periods vs. cold periods. Already the climate has failed to follow the predictions of the global warming supporters and the predictions of a rapid rise is sea-levels have been called “the greatest lie ever told” by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner probably the world’s greatest expert on sea level. Dr. Mörner is the past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and the leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.)
3. It must be proven that specific policies limiting CO2 emissions are the only way or are the most cost effective way to mitigate the rising temperatures. (Again this is a topic that is at least as complex scientifically, politically and economically as the core global warming theory. There have been suggestions that remediations other than emission suppression would be effective for far less money, and also allegations that research into such alternate approaches is being blocked by the defenders of the “reduce CO2 emissions” crowd. Regardless, if 1 and 2 are true we should explore openly and aggressively all means to mitigate the temperature rise.)
4. Lastly, and with full clarity we should address the political dimensions of any scheme proposed to address temperature rise. If the solution requires changes to the economic structure of the world economy this itself is not without potentially massive human and financial costs. People and nations typically act in their own self-interest. Any technical solution that places burdens on individuals or nations that they won’t accept is a waste of time to pursue.
Chasing solutions that are unworkable politically may well lead to unrest where the bad consequences for human kind exceed those predicted by the direst global warming alarmists. Developed countries won’t beggar themselves to solve a problem that they can afford to deal with even if this condemns others in the world to suffering. We should be honest that it may be impossible politically to develop solutions that will actually keep temperatures down, and that instead we should focus on minimizing the consequences of an inevitable temperature rise. Just as a test, how many of you will be willing to return to 1903 levels of energy consumption, so that someone in India can have a tractor?
Blowing the resources needed to adapt to a hotter earth on ineffective attempts to keep it cooler could be a horrible mistake.
So even if the whole causal chain is true and the consequences are dire we still need an open political debate about how to react. The movement to “fix” the problem has already produced vast wealth for some (like Al Gore) and we ought to see much more open discussion of the whole story before proceeding, and we should be very skeptical of those who have a financial or political interest in adopting a particular strategy.