by
H. Sterling Burnett
People caught in the grips of the theory of anthropogenic global
warming (AGW), the idea that human activities, primarily fossil fuel
use, are causing catastrophic change in the world’s climate, seem to
live with blinders on, unable to admit evidence to the contrary.
I don’t begrudge the opinion of scientists who believe their own
research shows, or who believe the dominant number of peer-reviewed
papers indicates, humans are causing dangerous climate change. But I do
disagree with many of the assumptions made by proponents of AGW. So far,
evidence shows most of their projections concerning temperatures, ice,
hurricanes, species extinction, etc. have failed. As a result, their
projections of future climate conditions are not nearly trustworthy
enough to make the kind of fundamental, wrenching, and costly changes to
our economy and systems of government AGW proponents have proposed to
fight climate change. I don’t think climate scientists can foretell the
future any better than the average palm reader.
Making matters worse, AGW proponents discount, or ignore entirely,
powerful studies that seem to undermine many of their assumptions and
refute most of their conclusions.
Admittedly, I start with a position of skepticism, and indeed suspicion,
when well-known researchers release a new study purporting to reinforce
or provide further evidence AGW is true. This isn’t because I don’t
want to hear what those who disagree with my assessment have to say.
Rather, it’s based on my understanding of the lengths to which AGW true
believers have gone to manipulate temperature data and try to shoehorn
or force this and other data to match their dire projections. It is
reasonable, and even expected, for educated people to disagree with one
another on this issue. This back-and-forth exchange of points and
counterpoints shows the scientific method functioning as it should.
Many AGW believers, however, have seemingly abandoned the scientific method.
Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis, and developing a
theory, to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the
hypothesis against reality. A particular hypothesis is considered
superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more
explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses and when other
scientists running the same testing regime can reproduce the results of
the original test. Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in
principle, such that if the theory predicts ‘A’ will occur under certain
conditions, but instead sometimes ‘B’ or ‘C’ results, then the theory
has problems. The more a hypothesis’ predictions prove inconsistent with
results that occur during testing or real-world data, the less likely
the hypothesis is to be correct.
AGW theory does not work this way. No matter what the climate
phenomenon, if it can in some way be presented as being unusual by AGW
proponents, it is argued to be “further evidence of global warming,”
even if it contradicts earlier phenomena pointed to by the same people
as evidence of global warming. {The same technique evolutionists use to defend their theory. A Theory so inaccurate the courts rule ex cathedra in favor of it - ED}
What effects AGW will have seem to depend on which scientist one
consults and which model they use. In realm of climate change research,
different models looking at the same phenomenon applying the same laws
of physics with the same inputs produce dramatically varied results.
Another indication AGW advocates have thrown over the scientific method
is how they revert to various logical fallacies to manipulate peoples’
emotions in order to have the public dismiss climate realists’ arguments
and research. AGW advocates commit the fallacy of ad hominem
when they call researchers who disagree with their assessment of the
strength of the case for AGW “deniers”—an obvious attempt to link them
in the public’s mind with despicable Holocaust deniers. That is not
science, it’s rhetoric. I know of no one who denies the fact climate
changes, but there are significant uncertainties and legitimate
disagreements regarding the extent of humanity’s role in recent climate
changes and whether these will be disastrous. Those who refuse to
acknowledge highly regarded scientists disagree with AGW are the real
“deniers,” and they should suffer the opprobrium rightfully attached to
that label.
AGW proponents commit the fallacy of appeal to numbers when they say the
case for dangerous human-caused climate change is settled because some
high percentage of a subset of scholars agrees humans are causing
dangerous climate change. Consensus is a political, not a scientific,
term. People once thought Earth was flat. Galileo disagreed, saying he
believed it was round—and he was persecuted for saying so. And you know
what? Galileo was right, and the consensus of the time was wrong. At one
time, people, including the intellectual elite, believed Earth was the
center of the universe and the Sun revolved around it. Copernicus said
just the opposite. He was right, and everyone else was wrong.
Knowledge acquisition succeeds not through bowing to some purported
consensus in thought and opinion, but through questioning previously
received wisdom and continuously testing scientific theories against
data. “Because the vast majority of us said so,” is not a legitimate
scientific response to research raising questions about all or some part
of AGW.
AGW researchers commit the fallacy of appeal to motive when they say a
particular study or the work of a particular scientist or group of
scientists should not be taken seriously because of who funded them.
Both sides commit this fallacy, with climate skeptics often arguing AGW
research is biased based on the fact it was funded by government, which
history shows is predisposed toward finding reasons grow and exert ever
more control over people.
Research should be judged based on the validity of its assumptions,
whether its premises are true, and whether its conclusions follow from
its premises, not on who funded the research. Data, evidence, and logic
are the hallmarks of science, not motives.
Beyond the routine data manipulation and logical fallacies, AGW
advocates’ own e-mails show they have tried to suppress the publication
of research skeptical toward AGW. And they have routinely
attempted to interfere with the career advancement of scholars who
refuse to completely toe the AGW line, even stooping on occasion to try
to get scholars fired for producing research undermining AGW.
AGW fanatics also try to suppress the teaching of a balanced, accurate
understanding of the current state of climate science, with all its
uncertainties, in the nation’s schools. This is the tool of the
propagandist, not the scientist seeking the truth.
All these reflections came to a head in recent years, as AGW true
believers have fought in court to prevent the release of the data
underpinning their own research, attempted to suppress free speech by
accusing those with whom they disagree of committing libel, and even on
occasion called for the prosecution and incarceration of climate
skeptics for daring to question AGW orthodoxy. Some AGW proponents have
openly admired various authoritarian regimes for their ability to “get
things done” without the interference of democratic institutions. Real
scientists know truths do not bloom under authoritarianism.
When a theory does not comport with the facts, data, and evidence, it is
the theory that should be questioned, not the data or the motives of
those bringing such evidence to the world’s attention. Consider this my
plea for AGW true believers to embrace, once again, the scientific
method, to follow the evidence in the field of climate research where it
leads even if it proves inconvenient or inconsistent with their earlier
beliefs. To the extent I myself have failed to live up to this ideal, I
will try and do the same, approaching AGW arguments with an open mind.
