Not Everyone Agrees with Al Gore

Every time I see self-appointed prophet Al Gore on T.V. pushing his global warming gospel, I roll my eyes. He never fails to say, regarding the question of human-caused global warming, that the scientific debate is over. Gore and other like minded people often demonize people that disagree with them. The news media (including the editorial pages of my beloved Science magazine) rarely shows both sides of the debate, but constantly shoves it's own point of view in our faces. Nothing makes my B.S. detector ping more than when the proponent of one side discourages debate, and actively attacks those that disagree with their point of view.

I'm agnostic on global warming. It could be happening, and it could be a result of human activity, but it could also be a natural cycle. I haven't decided yet because I feel that I haven't gotten the full picture because the pro side obviously has a political agenda. I thought it was interesting to see on Drudge an article written by a scientist on the con side of the debate, Dr. Timothy Ball of The Natural Resources Stewardship Project. The poor guy's email box is probably jammed full of hate mail, but he doesn't pull any punches.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Now I don't know this guy from Adam. I don't know anything about his scientific reputation nor have I read any of his prior publications, so he could be full of it as far as I know. But he does makes some good points.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skillfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Gore is obviously not a scientist and apparently knows little about the scientific method or scientific philososphy. Scientific "facts" are rarely ever set in stone-- our body of knowledge is constantly changing, and only someone with a politically or personally motivated agenda would make that claim.

Another problem with many scientific studies, especially those in the the softer sciences, is that they are mainly correlational, not causational. That is, one might discover a correlation between 2 or more phenomenon through observation, but one cannot prove that one phenomenon causes the other. Often, it is difficult to prove causation because there are too many uncontrollable variables. Psychological and health studies often suffer from this problem and that's why one year you hear that a medical study shows that eating X causes Y and the next year you hear about another study that contradicts the first one.

Climatological studies can also be prone to this flaw. But probably the biggest problem is that climatologists rely too much on models, which are built on assumptions. If any one assumption is wrong, then the whole model is faulty. When I went to conferences on biophysics, scientists that relied only on modeling for their research were often mocked for making "pretty pictures" that contained little real data.

But the biggest point I think Dr. Ball makes is regarding the behavior of some global warming proponents when they attack skeptics. Basically, skeptics are equated with Holocaust deniers and some even threaten to take away their livelihood for disagreeing.

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

Silliest Science Magazine Story of 2006

At the beginning of every New Year, many media outlets publish there best of and worst of the previous year. In keeping with that tradition and fulfilling my duty to mock those that take themselves way too seriously, I give you THE SILLIEST SCIENCE MAGAZINE STORY OF 2006, Epidemiologist Does His Part to save the planet by attending the Burning Man Festival (my title)."

The news story labeled a "Campaign" is laugh out loud funny. It begins,

Since 2004, David Shearer has enjoyed yearly visits
to the Burning Man festival, which draws more than 35,000
revelers, artists, and anarchist tent-dwellers to Nevada’s Black
Rock Desert in early September.

Wow, what a devoted fan. He's been two times!

But last year, the epidemiologist turned–environmental consultant
decided to take the event’s Leave No Trace principle one step further. He calculated the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the
actual burning of the man statue, a yearly highlight. The growth, transport, and burning of the wood in the 38-ton statue, Shearer found, produced 110 tons of equivalent carbon emissions. To offset those emissions, he and a
colleague, Jeff Cole, began raising money for renewable-energy projects such as methane capture in Pennsylvania and wind farming in South Dakota.

Someone get this man a medal, a Congressional Medal of Honor while you're at it! Gee, if they're so concerned about the effect the festival will have on the global environment, maybe they shouldn't be holding such a event. Think of all the meals that could be cooked by people in third world countries with the wood that it takes to make one Burning Man! Think of the children!

Now, Shearer is encouraging participants to purchase similar credits to offset travel to the festival, onsite energy use, and the ubiquitous fire art that pervades the festivities. “I’m trying to rebrand the idea of being cool,” he says.

Yes, folks, be responsible global citizens if you are going to be a hypocrite and attend a pointless festival that will pump tons of carbon emissions into the earth's fragile ecosystem!

Seriously, the self-righteousness of Science magazine when it publishes stories like this is nauseating. I read the editorials and politics section of Science sheerly for amusement. It's funny to see the editorial board pretend to be objective scientists and fall all over themselves praising the Democrats and bashing the Republicans when both parties are not likely to give them the funding that they want. Scientists can never get enough funding. It's something they always whine about.

And I feel like a downright John McCain "maverick" when I don't agree with most of the the crap they're selling especially regarding stem cell research and global warming hysteria. Since when did science have the market cornered on truth? Oh yeah, but I'm just one of the "Jesus freaks" so my opinion doesn't matter.