Comment (17)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiGlobal warming: bad times for science
Environmental politics are forcing a premature consensus about climate change that may eventually cool our confidence in science.
Recently we heard news of scientific evidence supporting the existence of large ice sheets during the Turonian era, one of the warmest periods in Earth's history -- much warmer than today's period or the more extreme predictions of the global warming models for the near future. So, are the polar caps in danger of disappearing or not? My answer in this case, as in other instances of the climate change news we are confronted with almost daily, is: we don't know.
In the early 1990's, when I first heard of the evidence of an increasing global temperature, the topic attracted my attention. I was starting my scientific career. Naturally, I had an interest in many scientific questions and the time to read about them. So, from time to time I went to the library to scan the articles in the recent issues of the journals Nature and Science. I frequently read those that had to do with changes in global temperature. To my surprise, I encountered articles that came to opposite conclusions. For some, global temperatures were rising, for others, decreasing. There was no evident difference in the materials on which the studies were based. They were using ice cores from high latitude regions. My conclusion was: we don't know.
If the global warming theory is proved wrong, citizens will look at science with lack of trust and perhaps with contempt.
These studies are nothing like cutting a piece of ice, taking it into the lab, putting it inside some device and then reading a number on a display. They are based on scientists' assumptions, and decisions that go from the selection of the sampling locations, to the analysis of the data, correction for predictable bias and the interpretation of the numbers. These studies are very complex and there is a lot of room for the personal opinions and decisions of the scientists. This is why similar studies can produce opposite conclusions. As a scientist, this does not surprise me at all and it does not imply anything about the quality of one or the other group of scientists. It is by accumulation of data and discussion that assumptions and interpretations are proved false or correct and a consensus is reached.
This was my state of mind about the global warming issue when I learned that, suddenly, in less than 10 years, the consensus had been reached. By now I had more experience on how complex scientific issues evolve and are clarified, and this looked suspicious. The argument at that point was that carbon emission by human activity is producing an increase of global temperature. I looked at the one essential piece of evidence and found that it does not match the official thesis. Plots of temperature since the end of the nineteenth century show a temperature increase until 1940, a plateau from 1940 to 1980 and then a constant increase. The increase in carbon emissions between 1940 and 1980, however, was approximately 57 per cent of the total increase from 1850 to 2000. How is it that such large increase in emissions failed to produce an increase of the temperature for 40 years? This discrepancy between data and interpretation is enough to cause a scientific paper to be rejected for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Any ad-hoc explanation would not be enough to prevent rejection. The data are required to stand a quantitative test.
My suspicion about the general consensus was greater because the "truth" of global warming received so much support from political groups. The issue had become a political one and had come out of the exclusive realm of science. Whatever science was there was magnified by a political surge. All sorts of diagrams, models and predictions were being published in all sorts of popular publications. Apparently, as far as we can tell, all is very solid science and the consensus is almost universal. But this is apparent only, because political forces are supporting and funding studies that conclude in favour of the man-made global warming interpretation, whereas they starve and filter those that conclude or might conclude the opposite.
I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues. My field is earth sciences, related to certain aspects of climate change in the geological scale. Approximately 70 per cent of fellow researchers with whom I have discussed the matter think that we do not have sufficient information to be sure about the issue and that the pretended consensus is politically manufactured. The other 30 per cent do believe there is sufficient evidence in favour of the man-made global warming interpretation. My conversations have sampled scientists from Scotland to Gibraltar and from San Francisco to Moscow.
There are two more facts that are clear evidence of politics overriding science in this issue. I had some direct experience, through my work, of the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I can give witness to the reliability and quality of the studies carried out to test the safety of underground repositories. I have always been convinced that there is the knowledge and technology to create these repositories. I have also experienced the opposition of environmental groups and the impossibility of a dialogue on scientific ground with them. Theirs is a political position. They succeeded in delaying the implementation of underground nuclear waste repositories everywhere in Europe. Now, Britain is returning to nuclear energy for the simple reason that climate change, which has become a much more popular "phenomenon", can now be used to convince the public that nuclear power is necessary. Scientific reasons were not the cause of stopping nuclear programmes and they are not the justification for present moves to combat climate change.
The other fact is the designation of Al Gore as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize last year. Most recipients of the prize have worked for years to solve human conflicts and some have suffered and given the best part of their lives for the causes they fought. Gore simply made a film and toured the world for a short time while cashing in heavily on a popular theory. This shows that the environmental lobby has become so successful and powerful that they are fearless and ready to take their battle to the most unconvincing extremes.
This panorama is a distressing one for science. The case for man-made global warming has been made waving the banner of science. There are reasons to believe it is happening and reasons to believe it is not happening. But science has been given an authority that it does not have, as yet, to decide on the matter. Only the future will be able to decide the question. If the global warming theory is proved wrong, citizens will look at science with lack of trust and perhaps with contempt. So much of their lives is being altered on the basis of this "scientific truth". Science may have a darker future if citizens are disappointed about its reliability.
Javier Cuadros is a specialist in earth science. He works in London.
How refreshing it is to read such a balanced article on a topic which now appears to be atop a wave of political hysteria. There’s a “pigs at the trough” mentality among some researchers, where all they seemingly have to do to obtain finances for their projects is to say, “Global warming” and the money comes rolling in.
Nature is self-adjusting. The more we endeavour to change nature, the more it’ll kick against us. Yes, its good to cut down on pollution, that’d be good for nature (and us, as we are part of it all). What we have to do is accept change instead of trying to change nature, we should learn to live with it.
My personal opinion is that we are heading for a mini ice age.
I wonder… was it all the industry and vehicles pumping out carbon emissions which caused all previous ice ages?
Thanks for this artical. It’s what I have been feeling in my guts lately. Why?? Well, I remember the energy crisis of the 1970’s —I was in Grade 7 and learned all about it. Then.. there was the population explosion… now global warming. The media’s popularization of “science” - and the bandwagon effect that ensues is indeed fickle. Science’s popular image is already tarnished; that is if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Global Warming is a radical theory proposed by a few scientists several decades ago. This theory was captured by environmentalist, antihuman ideologists and politicians and elevated into the status of a fear based religious belief. In science, theories are grounded by the evidence that supports the theory. Even though the Global Warming Theory has been under the microscope for the past few decades and even though billions of dollars have been thrown into research on this subject, the work has not been able to accumulate a strong foundation of data supporting this theory. On the contrary, the analysis by hundreds of top scientist indicates the evidence has been building up over the past few years to reject this theory
It being of obvious and vital necessity to wean the world off dependence on fossil fuels, why not go along with the global warming theory anyway? Particularly because nobody seems to deny that it may be true, so we may as well avoid the risk! As for that glorious notion of the ‘objectivity’ of Science, what kind of noodle still believes in it anyway? The fact is that we humans have to have some kind of a story to shape our actions, and the Green Agenda does seem to correspond to reality much better than Glorious Progress based on Objective Science.
But what if it proves that is right???
http://www.220kg.com/blogs/Globalwarming/
In an excellent presentation given some years ago, Michael Creighton warned very clearly - if it’s consensus, it’s not science. Good science is not worked out through consensus. The “everyone says...” prefix is added to bad or weak science. Real scientific break-throughs come about because consensus opinion is challenged - Wegener and continental drift, Lister and clean hands after surgery - the list is very long indeed.
As I sit here, recovering from shovelling snow from my driveway - for the 5th time this week (we received multiple feet of snow last week - more than usual - even for Canada!) I am watching BBC news on television. The item just covered reports the severe winter conditions in Afganistan this year. Cattle or freezing to death in the fields.
Last month, I was in San Francisco and I watched the coverage of a major snow fall in the mountains of California. 10 feet of snow fell in a day!
If Global warming continues at this pace, I’m going to buy a snow blower and a skido!
As an Environmentalist, I personally don’t care if the earth is getting warmer or not. What I care is that humans are healthy. Healthy mind, soul and body. It is true that politicians have a great influence, but we should use that as tool to and support the good things that came out of climate change revolution. I do enjoy having cleaner air, less garbage to deal with, and enjoying the community life that environmentalist support. Nevertheless I agree that there are some extreme suggestions, in particular the claim of over population, as the root of all environmental and social problems, but these claims with coherent dialogue and using common sense are being properly addressed.
Forgive my grammar and poor style, it’s a work in progress.
I believe what we are seeing is science being corrupted and intimidated by political power(very common these days) and media that can’t help but sensationalize with even the slightest provocation.
An excellent article. Real scientists aren´t so desperate for consensus. Those who are should take two tablets of scepticism daily to alleviate their anxiety and return them to the benchside of their more sober colleagues.
Sorry to say there are many more examples of this than just “Global Warming.” Unfortunately scientist themselves are the ones who bear the brunt of the responsibility. The priests in white robes that hide the raw data have replaced the priests in black robes who hid the truth. Fortunately for us, just as the printing press and a bunch of brave souls gave us access to the truth. Now the internet has given us access to the raw data. We don’t need the priests interpretations, we are quite capable ourselves thank you very much.
The problem now is the same as the problem that arose then. Just as people hated the truth that came to light back then because it ruined the good thing they had going for themselves. That same group hates real science today.
Mercator knows my writings on 2 other subjects under my other ID of abolish you know what, but I have something to say about global warming, as it proves that I’m not a 1 issue writer.
Whether or not greenhouse gases cause global warming, we must clean up pollution. I support nuclear powerplants for electricity, because nuclear power does not generate greenhouse gases. Yes, they have to solve the problem regarding nuclear waste, but the newer nuclear powerplants emit less nuclear waste. Physicists also search for ways to recycle nuclear waste, so that in the future we can safely use this as well. Nuclear power, in addition to solar & wind power benefit the environment. Patrick Moore of Greenpeace is an environmentalist who supports nuclear power & many environmentalists previously hostile to nuclear power now support nuclear power. There’s a group called environmentalists for nuclear power. I have helped the National Audubon Society in the past & I believe that nuclear power is beneficial. Many nations use nuclear power & do so safely.
hmmm… it can be very confusing at times, huh…
IMHO… :-) Simplicty, impartiality, detachment are, matters of the hearts & minds, in men, ...and not science.
It is also reassuring to note that with the right kind of “science,” ...the truth will always prevail. Watch out for those political motives of use, ...for they may stick out like a sore-thumb.
The key to overcome these obstacles, is to be alert, with the right tools of science, such as, ...having access to the right people; ...with the right information; ...and put to use at the right time.
Historically, ...we have seen that ‘science,’ ...as a tool, ...can also be used in the most evil ways. We just have to be more ‘systematic and accurate’ in our approach in the conduct of our daily lives.
ck :-)
What is odd, here, is the use of the language tenses, at the head of the article (”...politics are forcing a premature consensus ...”, “… may eventually cool our ...”. Politics have forced a supposed-consensus some while ago, and this act has been only the latest nail in the coffin of our belief in the objectivity, and therefore reliability, of science (sadly, science has been forced to serve ideology for along while; this is generally not the fault of scientists). I can think of at least three issue where we can never, now, get an objective conclusion concerning; global warming is one of them, the nature and origins of homosexuality (a deeply-politicised issue) is another; above all, there is the origin of the world/life itself - the most “ideologised” question of all.
This is why I continue to read MercatorNet regularly. Thank you.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >