Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Along that same line, the Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”.
Excellent! We now have the definition of science and the scientific method. OK…now let’s look at a scenario and you tell me if it meets either criteria.
Heliocentrism (Sun is center of solar system) is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” I vote that this is definitely not science or the scientific method.
Science came along anyway and said, “we will observe, measure, and experiment” and wouldn’t you know it…the questioners were right. OK…before anyone gets all pedantic up in here…heliocentric is still used as a term to state the frame of reference and while the sun is not the true center of the solar system, it is the focus of our planetary orbits. Yes, the sun is also hurling through the universe around the center of our galaxy, and our orbits do create a sort of spirograph-like linework as we all fly about the universe. The fact remains, the Earth isn’t the center…good thing there were geocentric deniers out there.
Uh oh! Deniers…there is a term you usually only hear in one type of conversation…climate change. More specifically, human induced climate change.
Why such a strong term like deniers? Why shouldn’t the scientific method be applied here as well? Why is there no room to hypothesize, test, modify? Instead it is decreed that man made climate change exists at frightening levels and all who don’t accept this as immutable fact, well you are nothing but heretics. I don’t like that at all…especially since most of the people calling others out for questioning any of this are in no way, shape, or form scientists. Most of them are spouting off what they read in headlines, tweets, or the lofty scientific journal known as Facebook, but how much have they actually studied?
I bring this up because of all the noise about a Trump presidency spelling the end of Earth as we know it due to the climate change he will magically bring about. I got to thinking…I like to be informed…I like to know why I fall on one side of a discussion or the other. I am not afraid to be the outsider voice…I should look into the science of climate change and see why all the hostility and denier talk emerged. Maybe I will fall in line and agree, or maybe I will see that the scientific method has been handcuffed and we need the deniers to keep all of us honest.
I looked…I studied…I researched. If I found a statement for one side or the other, I looked for multiple sources to back it up. I took zero celebrity opinions as fact (I wish more people did that). Such as James Cameron who said, “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads. Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their a** I’m not sure they could hear me.”
What did I find? I found enough to say I am a questioner of the processes and studies in play…I worry that we are being misled for profit. What??? That doesn’t ever happen anywhere ever….I worry that we all are caught up in some modern day version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and everyone is afraid to yell out for fear of being denigrated.
Why do I worry about these things? Facts and figures…theory…science. I question that maybe the scientific method has been tucked away in the cabinet on this one. True science always allows for legitimate questioning. We still question Einstein’s theories…there are 370 different proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem, which means 369 people continued questioning one of the basic foundations of geometry after it was already proven, we are still finding discrepancies with the speed of light being constant (see light through a Bose Einstein condensate or rubidium vapor, pretty cool). We either become more confident in our knowledge, or we learn that we didn’t know as much as we thought we did.
We have been studying the cosmos for as long as man could look skyward, yet we still learn something new every day. Climate change science has been around for a little over 100 years and somehow we have it nailed already? I have a very hard time believing that.
Let me ask you a question. Say you live in a city area…and you are walking/driving through this city on a warm evening and you enter an area with less pavement/concrete or fewer buildings…ever notice the intense temperature drop? I certainly do…why? Concrete/asphalt/buildings hold heat and release it more slowly. Why does this matter?
The urban heat island effect…most scientists tend to agree that cities are hotter due to this effect. As cities get bigger and have more concrete/asphalt/buildings, they hold more heat…this distorts the measurements. Now…here is the divergence. One side says that corrections are made in the models to account for this. However, at least two different teams of scientists that I found (one American, one Dutch) using different testing methodologies came to the same conclusion… “the adjustments are not adequate to remove the urban heat island effects.”
This means that the temperature readings taken in urban areas are distorted by all the industrial progress and the statistical corrections (which even supporters of the climate change theory agree are necessary) are not enough and skew the average upward…by as much as 100%. The average rural temperatures are .5 C lower than they were in 1930, while the average urban temperature is 1.5 C higher than 1930…odd because the greenhouse effect doesn’t only happen over cities, right?
What else? Did you know that the atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen…argon makes up .9%…which leaves .1% for all other gases including the one we all know about, CO2. If you go by volume, these greenhouse gases make up about 3% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is 97% of the greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. CO2 is only .04% (of which only 3% or so is human created…so .0012% of the atmosphere is human made CO2…hard to believe that we can make a huge difference no matter what we do…but I am still willing to listen)
Now, it seems to be agreed upon from both sides that CO2 is a much better insulator than water vapor. However due to sheer amounts involved, water vapor is responsible for as much as 80% of the greenhouse effect. Estimates are that a 3% uptick in water vapor has the same effect on trapping heat as a 100% increase in CO2.
Odd that no one shares that fact with us. Or…that many models/studies of ice cores show that historically, CO2 levels don’t rise until *after* there has been an upswing in global temperature and not before. This leads to theories (remember…scientific method) that say when the temperature goes up, the oceans warm. The warmer ocean releases more CO2 and your concentrations rise accordingly.
Even the IPCC will quietly note that little to no relation between extreme weather and climate change has been proven to exist. Weather satellites have detected no increase in global temperature averages over the last 18 years. Can we no longer question when the data doesn’t match the predicted outcome?
Why are we not being presented both sides of the story equally? Why only the side for man made climate change? Some studies show that ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are growing. While one peninsula of Antarctica is heating up, most of the mainland is cooling.
Well…now that we know that there is far more for science to study and test, we have to ask…why the “denier” label? Why are those who would test theories or find contradicting information derided as crackpots?
$$$$ could be a factor. $79 billion has been handed out by the US government to various groups in the name of climate change. Al Gore has turned his climate change activism into an estimated net worth of $172.5 million in a few short years. Gore and his partner made nearly $218 million in profits between 2008 and 2011 from a carbon trading company they co-founded.
Universities find that they get more research money if they align with the pro-climate change outcomes. Some researchers even admit that they ran studies with pre-determined outcomes. When you claim that you ran a study to show the benefits of regulations and controls instead of that you ran a study to see what the outcomes of these controls would be, that should set off at least a small alarm.
All this said, I do appreciate cleaner air. I love that we don’t have smog alerts in Los Angeles any more. I am all for doing as little damage to this planet as possible. If we can do things in a way that keeps us all breathing easier and keep our water cleaner, sign me up. I am not anti-climate change or a “denier”. I just don’t think we know as much as we say we do…and that today’s headline loving society has decided the facts without performing the requisite science.
I don’t believe that scientists should be driven from their studies or called out for fools when all they want to do is follow the scientific method…though at least these days they won’t be boiled in oil or drawn and quartered for pressing on with their studies. Calling people deniers for questioning something in the name of science, is today’s version of the church calling them heretics.
True science never stands still and always allows for questions. Some things have been proven and we can stop questioning. Earth is round…though that seems to be a question for some, but the flat-earthers have no science behind their position. They have conspiracy and photoshop claims. Nothing with the climate science has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt…and the other side has legitimate science behind their questions…I think we have to take them seriously until their claims are disproved.
Above the Nonsense 