Science Rejected by Global Warming Alarmists

by Lewis Loflin



  
  

Let's review the scientific method to see where we stand. To quote Antonio Zamora;

One form of the scientific method is to 1) make observations, 2) create a theory (I say hypothesis) that explains the observations, 3) extrapolate or make predictions from the new theory, and 4) verify the predictions with more observations. If the predictions do not agree with the observations, generate a new theory and repeat the process. The scientific method requires that theories be testable.

If a theory (hypothesis) cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory. Step 2 involves inductive reasoning, as described above. This approach can be used to study gravitation, electricity, magnetism, optics, chemistry, etc. Sometimes more than one theory (or hypothesis) can be proposed to explain observable events...

It doesn't become a "theory" until it can pass the testing stage and the test must be repeatable. They must also account for example past global warming that couldn't be associated with fossil fuels. The scientist must publish the methods and data used in order to verify their claims. This means real things that can be checked and verified in the real world.

This method is not exactly set in stone, but clearly excludes any form of supernaturalism and should. Science must be severed from any form of religion and must be used to explain only a material process. Science should stay clear of politics and political activism because that will compromise objectivity. Science has become a $400 billion a year industry.

The issue of leaked e-mails from so-called climate scientists in December 2009 is a good case in point. Its critics claim a vast conspiracy by government scientists of inflating the dangers of human-induced global warming (now called climate change this week) for political ends. The first controversy has been the refusal of these researchers to disclose the raw data or the methodology to the public.

They claim peer review applies to only the scientists they select and not the general public who tax dollars often funds this research. They complain about the "lack of faith" the public has in science. Science is not about faith and using terms such as "deniers" against their opponents smacks of religious fundamentalism.

Typical of the problem is Dr. Michael Mann formally of the University of Virginia that got a great deal of tax dollars for his research there. His famous "Hocky Stick" graph has been under attack in several quarters for years as he has continued to refuse to release information to critics. To quote the AP article Virginia: University Objects to an Inquiry May 27, 2010:

The University of Virginia on Thursday filed a motion in circuit court asking the state to halt an investigation into the work of a prominent climate researcher, saying that the inquiry threatened academic freedom. The researcher, Michael Mann, came under scrutiny last year after the unauthorized release of more than a thousand e-mail messages and documents from a British climate research center.

The messages led to accusations that Dr. Mann and other scientists had exaggerated or manipulated data pointing to human-driven global warming. Virginia's attorney general has issued a subpoena for all communication, research and data produced by Dr. Mann during his tenure at the university.


The politics of the Virginia Attorney General aside, this continued refusal to release this publicly funded research to the public does indeed undermine "faith" in science and the science community has only itself to blame. Let's clarify theory versus hypothesis.

For example we would say evolution is a theory (in science this is not the dictionary definition of theory) just as much as the Theory of Relativity is undisputed in science. The process behind how evolution works is unproven. Pure materialism (the atheist preferred hypothesis) has never been duplicated in any test nor can it be tested.

So naturalism being the mechanism behind evolution is a hypothesis and thus still unproven using the scientific method. This fact should be simply stated as such until there is a hypothesis that can be proven.

The controversy that surrounds the human-induced climate change hypothesis is just as problematic. Climate change has occurred continuously throughout geological history as any high school geology class can point out. The last major ice age ended 12,000 years ago when for unknown reasons the almost one mile of ice covering much of North America and Europe melted in a very short time.

The Arctic ice has melted at least three times since then to allow the passage of whales from the North Atlantic to the Pacific, reasons unknown. Climate has altered human history and is in historical records going back to ancient times. Climate change like evolution is a scientific fact beyond dispute. See Whale Fossils Unlock the History of the North.

But like evolution "climate change" can't be tested or verified under controlled conditions. All we have are the opinions of often radical scientists who are simply human beings. And opinion is driven by personal beliefs and often self-interest. Instead of presenting all the facts and say "we just don't know for sure" they have become embroiled in or take an active role in politics. It just not about science anymore.

At this point one must ask is it worth it to debate the science on any of "hot button" issue such as climate change or evolution? I think it would be a waste of time because opinions are so entrenched and dogmatic.

The information is out there for anyone that really wants it, but radical environmentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and radical atheists alike all have political agendas driven their personal opinions. It's pointless to present facts that won't satisfy any of them, so I don't waste my time trying to reason with religious fundamentalists be they Christians, dogmatic humanists, or Environmentalists.

Climate change is normal, period. Get over it and adapt.

 



What does Al Gore say about the 'science' behind climate change?

"As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology."



 



donate