Except perhaps for health care, no other topic of public interest has attracted more misinformation, disinformation and outright falsehoods than global warming. One of the most pernicious is the assertion that science has proven the earth is getting warmer, and the human race is responsible. For example, back in January of this year, a poll of several thousand climate scientists showed a large majority agreed with the statement the earth is getting warmer as a result of human activity. Political figures, reporters and other laymen have then used the results of this poll to maintain the argument is over. Global warming caused by people is genuine. Science has proven it. And that poll represents real science.
Wrong. Science is not done by polls. Science is not a popularity contest. In fact, it is not even a democratic process. By itself a poll of scientists demonstrates nothing. Indeed the very concept that global warming is science is at best dubious. The problem here is not the growing evidence that global temperatures are cooling, as shown by snow in such unusual places as Jerusalem, New Orleans and Buenos Aires, Argentina. Rather global warming fails the most basic requirement of the scientific process. It explains nothing; it predicts nothing; and worse, it cannot be shown to be wrong, it cannot be falsified.
To see in contrast how real science works, let's look at two of the most famous (and successful) physics theories of the 20th Century, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and his theory of General Relativity. It is worth remembering that in the vernacular a theory is an idea that someone thinks might be true, but that others find doubtful or dubious. By contrast, a scientific theory is a collection of ideas, concepts and assertions that are presented together with evidence that suggests or proves the theory is indeed correct. And a scientific theory needs to be falsifiable; it must be subject to some kind of test or experiment that could demonstrate conclusively the theory is wrong.
Einstein presented his special theory of relativity in 1905. It was based on the puzzling observation that the speed of light was always the same, regardless of the motion of the observer relative to the source of light. This contradicts our expectations from our experience. If I am riding towards you in an auto, and throw a softball at you, the ball travels much faster toward you than if I am standing still. If the auto is traveling away from you when I throw the ball, the motion of the car may be too much for the strength of my arm to overcome, and you would then see that ball traveling away from you, even though I threw the ball towards you. If I shine a flashlight towards you though, the speed of the light is the same, regardless of whether I am riding towards you, away from you, or just standing still.
Now it is true that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, discovered some 40 years earlier, also implied the speed of light was constant, again contrary to common sense expectations. Using this principle, Einstein derived even more bizarre results, including the prediction that a moving clock would tick more slowly than a clock at rest - time dilation - and the claim that nothing could move faster than the speed of light. Einstein thus made a whole pile of predictions, predictions that contradicted our experience, and challenged our view and understanding of space and time.
Time dilation though has been repeatedly verified, exactly as Einstein predicted. Unstable subatomic particles last much longer if they are moving close to the speed of light than if they are at rest in the physicist's laboratory. Time dilation has even been seen at ordinary speeds. Put an atomic clock on an airplane and fly it around the world. Even though special relativity predicts the time dilation effect is less than one microsecond - spread over several days - the atomic clock is accurate enough to record the effect. The famous twin paradox is no longer a subject for idle speculation and argument; rather it is an observed, quantified effect.
What is important is not understanding every jot and tittle of special relativity, notorious for being subtle and difficult. Rather, recognize that Einstein's theory made numerous predictions, many of which contradicted our common sense. And every one of his predictions has been verified. So if you polled 1000 physicists, all 1000 would agree, they accept special relativity as being correct.
Einstein's theory of general relativity is an even more striking example of how science works. Appearing in 1915, Einstein's new theory challenged Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation, which had ruled for nearly 250 years. It made predictions that were even more counter to common sense. It claimed that near something massive, like the sun, space was curved. A straight line between two points, say the earth and a distant star, ceased to be a straight line if it grazed the sun. But in 1919 this effect was confirmed during a total eclipse of the sun. When the results were announced, and Newton's theory of gravitation was indeed overthrown, the ensuing publicity made Einstein world famous.
Unfortunately General Relativity's predictions were mostly so subtle and difficult to measure that no further confirmation was available for over 40 years. Scientists tended to accept General Relativity, since it conformed to some very basic principles - general covariance - they felt to be true. But additional experimental confirmation - the challenge of falsification - was lacking.
Starting about 40 years ago, astronomers began discovering things like neutron stars and pulsars that could only be understood in the context of general relativity. Newton's theory of gravity simply did not work. A binary pulsar was particularly noteworthy. Initial observations seemed completely puzzling, even confounding. Eventually researchers realized two neutron stars were orbiting each other. And their enormous density - millions of tons per cubic inch - bent and curved the space around them just as Einstein had predicted nearly 60 years earlier.
Scientists now have subjected General Relativity to numerous tests, and it has passed them all. More detail can be found in the book, Was Einstein Wrong, that provided a narrative of the challenges to and tests of General Relativity, presented with excellent scientific authority and at a level anyone can understand.
As with Special Relativity, it is not necessary to understand the details of General Relativity. Rather, the message here is this difficult and subtle theory made numerous predictions that violated common sense. And every prediction has been confirmed. Not one deviation has been found. And a lot of scientists have searched diligently for any deviation from General Relativity, because scientific fame and maybe even a Nobel Prize awaits the person who shows General Relativity to be wrong (the Nobel Prize in Physics retains its prestige, despite recent fiascos with the Economics and especially the Peace Prize).
Returning to global warming, the contrast could not be greater. Global warming explains nothing and predicts nothing. And it cannot be falsified. Regardless of the weather, global warming is always responsible. Is California suffering a drought? Global warming is the cause, and we can expect more and more desertification as the earth warms up. Is California getting too much rain? Global warming is the cause, and we can expect more frequent and more violent storms as the earth warms up. Did California get just about the right amount of rain? Well, just be patient. Global warming may not happen this year, but it certainly will happen next year, or the year after.
One of the core elements of global warming are the numerous numerical models of climate - and the constant tinkering and adjustments they receive. In this connection, I am reminded of a quote from the late Professor Richard Feynman, one of the truly great physicists - and teachers of physics - from the 20th century, on the subject of speculative theories:
In constructing a new theory, we should be careful to insist that they should be precise theories, giving a description from which definite conclusions can be drawn. We do not want to proceed in a fashion that would allow us to change the details of the theory at every place that we find it in conflict with experiment, or with our initial postulates.
Any theory that is not completely absurd can be patched up at every point that brings up inconsistencies - and if we begin to believe in the talk rather than the evidence we will be in a sorry state. [Emphasis added.] Something of this kind has happened with the Unified Field Theories. For example it may be that one such theory said that there is a tensor Jμν which is “associated” with the electromagnetic tensor. But what does this “associated” mean? If we set the thing equal, the theory predicts wrong results. But if we don’t specify “associated,” we don’t know what has been said. And talk that this “association” is meant to “suggest” some new relation leads to nowhere. The wrong predictions are ascribed to the wrong “suggestions” each time, rather than to the wrong theory, and people keep thinking of adding a new piece of some antisymmetric tensor which would somehow fix things up. This speculative thought is no more to be believed than the talk of numerologists who find accidental relationships between certain magnitudes, which must be continuously modified as these magnitudes are measured with more precision, first relating units, and then smaller and smaller fractions of these units to keep up with the smaller and smaller uncertainties in the measured values.
If global warming was serving to justify something worthwhile, like lowering taxes or reducing the government’s intervention in our own lives, it would still need to be challenged. But the actual agenda behind it is the exact opposite – higher taxes and increasing government’s control over our lives. In the context of carbon emissions and their supposed effect on the environment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently, “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility.” Pelosi has evidently drifted completely away from the traditional liberal suspicion toward the accumulation of arbitrary power. One wonders how far she would be willing to go against those who refused this proposed inventory, apparently compulsory. Fines, confiscation of personal property (vehicles, air conditioners, etc.), imprisonment?
The supposed truth that global warming exists, is caused by human activities, and is a threat, is also used to dismiss those who challenge it as global warming deniers, no more credible than Holocaust deniers, an appalling act of intellectual bullying.
It is the global warming advocates though who fear and avoid debate and inquiry. Recently a professor from Stanford was interviewed for a skeptical documentary on global warming, Not Evil Just Wrong. But someone apparently had second thoughts about this scientist contributing to a film with an opposing viewpoint. And so the Stanford legal department sent a letter to the people making that documentary demanding that the scientist’s interview be omitted. Think about this. A world-famous academic institution, supposedly dedicated to free inquiry, uses its power to suppress an interview freely made with one of its professors.
The next time someone promotes global warming as a threat requiring immediate drastic action, ask them when has this theory successfully predicted anything. And follow up by insisting they tell you what evidence would convince them global warming is not occurring. My guess is they will not have any answers. But until they do have answers to these questions, global warming fails to be science, no matter how many polls get taken.
Robert L.
