Science was not a strong subject for me and I am certainly not qualified to pass judgment on the hard data and the cases for or against anthropomorphic (man-made) global warming.  Yet I also realize that most of the pundits that express such strong opinion on the subject know just as little about the science as I do.  The language used to describe the ‘opposition’ is the language of political and religious fanatics, not scientists.

Daniel Botkin makes this point well in  Absolute Certainty is Not Scientific, in the Wall Street Journal, 12/2/11.

I felt nostalgic for those times when even the greatest scientific minds admitted limits to what they knew. And when they recognized well that the key to the scientific method is that it is a way of knowing in which you can never completely prove that something is absolutely true. Instead, the important idea about the method is that any statement, to be scientific, must be open to disproof, and a way of knowing how to disprove it exists.

Therefore, “Period, end of story” is something a scientist can say—but it isn’t science.

Some scientists make “period, end of story” claims that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn’t happening. For me, the extreme limit of this attitude was expressed by economist Paul Krugman, also a Nobel laureate, who wrote in his New York Times column in June, “Betraying the Planet” that “as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason—treason against the planet.” What had begun as a true scientific question with possibly major practical implications had become accepted as an infallible belief (or if you’re on the other side, an infallible disbelief), and any further questions were met, Joe-McCarthy style, “with me or agin me.”

Not only is it poor science to claim absolute truth, but it also leads to the kind of destructive and distrustful debate we’ve had in last decade about global warming. The history of science and technology suggests that such absolutism on both sides of a scientific debate doesn’t often lead to practical solutions.

HKO Comment:

Is there in fact a trend of Global warming?

Is the amount of global warming bad?

Is it predominantly caused by man?

Does the environmental ecosystem have any self correcting capabilities?

Will the solutions proposed have any measurable effects?

While I barely know which end of the test tube the cork goes into, it seems absurd that we could know the answers to these questions with any degree of certainty.  If global warming was so certain then why has ‘climate change’  been substituted?  Who determines if warming is bad? Haven’t more people died from cold extremes?  Exactly how much warming is bad?  Does anyone really know what the optimal temperature is? If we are so certain that man is causing this, then how do we explain previous periods of climate change when man’s global foot print was significantly smaller?

It appears that mixing politics and science is no more palatable than mixing religion with politics.  Politics pollutes them both.

Science is a realm of discovery, skepticism, understanding, confirmation and challenge. But throughout history science has been polluted by political considerations.  In the Middle Ages the church considered any theory of the universe without the earth at the center heresy.

More currently science has been polluted by attempts to attach the certainty of science to the unknowable and the uncertain.  When science is hijacked to support political causes  skepticism and confirmation are treated as heresy the same as  the church condemned the heliocentric theories of the Middle Ages.

Wall Street bankers deluded themselves into thinking that the vastly complicated uncertainty of global markets and risk could be made certain with complicated mathematical formulas.  Blinded by vast sums of money they believed the ridiculous because they so wanted to. A philosophical understanding of risk was replaced with delusional mathematical certainty.

A political push to control wealth is served by the global warming/ climate change hysteria; credentialism and intelligence offers no more clarity to the future than the Gaussian Cupola Formula offered Wall Street.

That anyone could purport to know the future climate of the earth decades out with any degree of certainty defies common sense. The models offered to support such “science” are no more credible than the formulas created by the PhD quants on Wall Street who proposed to turn junk mortgages into AAA securities.

When climatologists such as John Coleman debunk AGW, the believers contest that he is not the right kind of scientist to dispute the “science”.  He is after all “just a weatherman”.

Al Gore is certainly no scientist and has less credentials than John Coleman on the subject.  Yet he is considered an authority on the subject by the believers. The “science” is debatable; the “certainty” is disturbing. Gore has consistently refused to debate the issue. “The debate is over” is certainly not the language of science. Nor is treating skeptics like heretics.

Climate Gate has shown that even “scientists” can be biased by the influence of money.  For every “scientist” that supports AGW there is a “scientist” debunking it.

The greater fallacies in the AGW argument are fallacies of logic, not science.  The idea of certainty in such a hugely uncertain and massive realm just defies common sense.

Science welcomes skepticism, religions generally do not.

It is hard not to gloat and feel some sense of relief at the release of the climate-gate e-mails.

The most bothersome aspect of the global warming mongers was the certainty.  I have no scientific back ground, but the idea that any group of scientists can pretend to know with any degree of certainty the cause and future of global temperatures just always seemed ridiculous.

Just as Wall Street caused a financial fiasco by refusing to recognize the unknown unknowns in the global financial market, climate scientists have refused to recognize their limits and have arrogantly claimed to know the unknowable.

Yet there were many scientists out there who for years have raised questions about the claims of global warming. Their professionalism was brought into question because they were not the politically recognized source. Using the word ‘denier’ to describe the skeptics made them seem like wingnuts akin to a holocaust ‘denier’.

The use of religious language to characterize the debate diminished any scientific credibility. It became clear that the science became secondary, the promoters of the theory wanted to believe it. It gave them a sense of comfort, a way to expunge their guilt.  Even the demonization of the skeptics seemed religious.

We spoke of using this problem to unite mankind in a common goal. This is not the language of science. Like a religion belief may be very resistant to any facts. The release of these e-mails is a critical tipping point in the debate and now the believers of global warming theory will be on the defensive.

We refused to believe that scientists could be corrupted by money. When money is thrown at one side of the debate we should expect information to lean toward that side, but we should question its credibility.

And yet again we see a compliant media more willing to confirm their own beliefs than to ask intelligent questions.

It is our nature to accept lies that give us comfort and certainty.  That is why the truth is so difficult for many to accept, much less work to uncover.  We owe a debt of gratitude to those who leaked the e-mails.

I would even nominate them for a Nobel Prize.