Climate Change: Science or Religion

For anyone having a background in a “hard science” discipline such as physics, chemistry or biology, the current climate change (global warming) debate bears little resemblance to the kind of scientific debates one is accustomed to.  The typical scientific debate focuses on one or more of the basic components of the “scientific method”, i.e., observation, hypothesis, and testing.  Each of these components is subjected to intense scrutiny before a scientific fact can be established.  All dissenting opinions must be reconciled before the hypothesis is established as a fact.  A fact cannot be established simply by consensus or majority vote.  Yet, this is what the proponents of anthropogenic global warming are claiming.  They proclaim that the science has been settled by a consensus of scientific opinion, in spite of the fact that thousands of scientists have signed petitions disagreeing with that opinion.

The earth has been cycling through periods of warming and cooling for millions of years.  Humans have only been present for a relatively brief flicker of the recent history, apparently during a gradual upswing in global temperatures coming out of the last ice age.  The entire concept of a developing catastrophic surge in global warming is based on an interpretation of data represented by the “famous/infamous” hockey stick graph of global temperature change over the past 100 or so years and its projection into the future.  Without this representation, there is no reason to implicate a human role in causing climate change.  The entire argument for anthropogenic global warming is dependent on the hockey stick.

Presently, there are two extremely serious doubts about the validity of the “hockey stick” data.  The first was provided by two Canadian scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who demonstrated that any data put into the computer model used, even random data, produced the “hockey stick”, i.e., the computer model was flawed.  The second doubt has recently been revealed by the apparent “climategate” scandal.  Intentional selection and/or elimination of data to purposely produce a biased result represent the extreme limit of scientific dishonesty.

An honest scientific opinion would state that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is far from being settled.  In fact, as detailed in my book, “A Path To The Gold”, there are many unanswered objections to there being a significant anthropogenic component to climate change.  To take the opposite opinion and to deny the existence of scientifically valid opposition is more characteristic of religion than of science.

Climategate

If found to be accurate, the latest revelations concerning fraudulent handling of global temperature data by previously well-respected scientists are disgusting.  The entire realm of scientific investigation would forever be tainted by this scandal.  If we can’t trust the findings of scientific research, mankind has, for all practical purposes, lost touch with reality.  Traditionally, the process of deriving scientific principles relating to the reality of our existence and the nature of our universe is one that demands the highest level of integrity.  Carefully checking and rechecking results and data are essential first steps and, thereafter, serious questioning and retesting in order to find weaknesses in a hypothesis are needed to give increasing levels of confidence to any conclusions drawn.  The scandalous lack of integrity reportedly displayed by a group of charlatans in lab coats in providing the single most critical set of results to support anthropogenic global warming is not only shameful but perhaps, even criminal.  How many billions of dollars would have been wasted worldwide in attempting to fix a problem that does not exist, or even if it did, is unlikely to have been influenced to any measurable degree by human activity.  As pointed out in my book, “A Path To The Gold”, we tend to grossly exaggerate the ability of humans to affect global trends.  The entire spectrum of human influence is infinitesimal compared to the vast and enormous scope of natural forces in the universe.  The planet has followed and will continue to follow a course determined by these natural forces not by human efforts or political interests.

The basic problem underlying this unfortunate situation is that many scientists are dependent on research grants that are evaluated and approved by review boards often focused on political agendas as well as scientific merit.  In other words, in order to obtain continued funding for their careers, scientists need to structure their grant applications to appeal to the political interests of the review boards.  The whole notion of “saving the planet” has become so ingrained in the “pop-culture” that politicians are using this sentiment to help advance their own political agendas.  Added to this, in the current scandal, is an apparent concerted effort to deny membership on scientific review boards to any who disagree with this political agenda. Putting it bluntly, science is being polluted and corrupted by politics.

Unfortunately, the majority of people are unaware of this.  Because the mainstream press is largely ignoring the story, the politicians are continuing to advance the lies in support of their agendas.

In conclusion, one comment heard recently is perhaps the best advice.  “Politicians should be kept as far away from scientific investigation as possible”.