Climate change, Consensus, and Galileo

This is a follow-up post to my article on Climate Change/Global Warming (CCGW). Some issues were raised in the reader comments that were too lengthy to follow up on there, so I decided to post my reply as another article. Thank you, Byron R., for your thought provoking comments. Readers, please see the original article and for context.

Okay I’m back from vacation and ready to engage. Byron, I appreciate your thoughts and the links you provided. I did indeed see the information at the NASA website backing up your “97%” claim. Thank you for the references you provided. My response turned in to way too much stuff for a comment box, so I decided to post an addendum article.

Byron asked  ”So if 97% of oncologists tell you you have cancer and 3% say you don’t, how would you plan your remaining time on earth?” Now certainly I am no doctor (nor am I a climatologist!). If I went to Dr. A, and he told me I had cancer (for the sake of discussion let’s call it prostate cancer, a relatively common cancer among men of my demographic). I would, for the sake of thoroughness  and peace of mind, seek a second opinion. Let’s say Dr. B said no, you don’t have prostate cancer. I would for the same reasons listed above seek a third opinion. Dr. C agrees with Dr. A, and tells me I have prostate cancer. I would probably stop there, because personally 2 out of 3 oncologists telling me I have cancer is convincing  enough for me.

Now, I know that prostate cancer can be detected by symptoms, i.e. an enlarged prostate, and an elevated PSA level. A biopsy is then performed to confirm the cells in the suspect area are malignant (cancerous). This method of detecting prostate cancer is tried and true and has been proven to be effective, medically speaking, in diagnosing this particular type of cancer. This is operational science set in motion.

What would I do with this information? I would seek treatment. In the meantime I would continue to live my life as best I could. By this I mean I would continue to worship God, to work to provide for my family, to be a good husband and father. If the treatments were not successful, I wouldn’t change my “plan” because my plan is not dependent on circumstance. I would work as long as I was physically able. I would try to prepare my loved ones for my departure from this life. I would continue to seek treatment but I would not A. bankrupt my family for unproven or radical treatments that may or may not prolong my life or B. undergo said treatments if the “cure was worse than the disease”, for instance if it diminished my quality of life to the point that said life became a burden to live, and a burden to others.

Byron, I know this isn’t what you meant by your question, really. But this is my answer to your question. Now, I will try to answer the issue you raised. First, I admit to using some editorial hyperbole by saying “Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear how man-caused climate change/global warming (henceforth: CCGW) is in danger of making our planet an inhospitable desert unfit for us and/or especially our children to live on.”  However, look at the pictures at the top of the page you cited: The current and future consequences of global change. I gotta tell ya, my hyperbole ain’t lookin’ so bad!

And now, to the issue at hand: the NASA website does indeed tell us that “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities…”. Although I may have reservations about this statistic, I cede the point. So, where does that leave us? 97%, that’s pretty overwhelming. That many scientists can’t be wrong can they?

I’m going to walk through a thought exercise here. Now I don’t have NASA statistics and web links to back me up so we’ll just have to make do, okay? “Consensus” does not necessarily equal “fact”. Here are just a few “consensus” ideas that have been overturned by one or a few individuals who were willing to go against the tide.

1. The earth is flat. This was a consensus view back in the dark ages. Thanks to world explorers such as Christopher Columbus and Magellan we now know different. 2. The sun and stars revolve around the earth. Galileo did the work and followed the evidence to where it led him at great personal cost. We now know the earth actually revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. 3. “Germs” spontaneously generate in hospital patients. Louis Pasteur refused to believe this nonsense and proved the Law of Biogenesis: to wit: life comes from life. This revolutionary idea forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease.

My point here is that operational/experimental science doesn’t work by “consensus”. Here is a dictionary.com definition of science: “the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.” Note that nowhere in the definition does it mention “consensus”. A scientist, if he’s honest, observes, experiments and measures, and formulates, based on the evidence and nothing else (i.e. consensus, who is footing the bill, etc.)

Now, I will speak to CCGW specifically. I do not deny the fact that the climate has changed or is changing. We have evidence of these changes taking place. Areas that were formally tropical are now arid, and visa-versa. There was an ice age at one point in history. Climate change happens. I get it. What I have a problem with is two-fold: A. attributing all the climate change we now see to mankind and B. Hamstringing our economy and workforce because of the politicization of CCGW.

In my original article I provided three links that give evidence against the severity of CCGW as claimed by the NASA website among others. Byron provided one article that “debunked” one of the articles I cited. How so? Byron’s article claimed my article used an arbitrary 15 year date range for the averaging data. His article claimed that the numbers would swing in their favor if we used a different 15 year date range. Given. However, I’ve seen articles that give 20 year date ranges showing the same result (here). At what point do we get an “un-arbitrary” date range?

My point here is not “HA! My link beat your link!” My point is that there seem to be two sides to this thing. There are some people who are saying “hold on, let’s take a step back and do some more research.” There are people such as Judith Curry who tell us “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux.” Who, you ask? Ms. Curry is the head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Now the North Avenue Trade School may not have the best football team around (sorry, couldn’t resist) but I’d put their science department up against anyone in the world.

I could provide links ad nauseum telling about fraud in CCGW reporting, stating that CCGW is not human caused, telling us that the oceans are not warming, the ice caps are not shrinking, etc. I could even provide articles stating that hundreds of scientists who are skeptical of man-caused CCGW, and that there really is no consensus. I am sure Byron could provide three articles for my every one debunking them. It’s like a game of tic-tac-toe, no one ever wins. (By the way, I’m not trying to win- just making a point.)

When I look at the NASA website and see all the organizations that are on board with man caused CCGW, I ask myself: where are these guys getting their funding? What is their agenda? We should all be willing to take a peek behind the curtain, so to speak.

In addition, the global climate, IMO, is far too complex an animal to model on even the best supercomputers currently in use. The articles about CCGW from any perspective are littered with “coulda-shoulda-woulda” verbiage much more than they contain “did-does-will”. Scientists are still learning.

As previously stated, we need to be Good Stewards of the domain that has been entrusted to our care. The science is needful and relevant when properly pursued and properly used. Let’s keep a cool head on our shoulders. Let us all continue to do what is right regardless of circumstance or perception.

Byron (and anyone else interested), I have pretty much said all I’m going to say on the subject of CCGW. If you want to discuss the subject with me “offline” (i.e. via email) my email is jhp367@gmail.com.  The last word is yours if you want it. God Bless-