Why I am Cool to Global Warming – Part 3: Good Science is Honest Science by Larry Stout
Why I am Cool to Global Warming – Part 3: Good Science is Honest Science by Larry Stout
I worked for nine years in an academic institution that required its undergraduate as well as graduate students to write a scientific paper in order to graduate. I served as an advisor and an evaluator for hundreds of papers over those years. In addition, I have been forced to read a staggering number of technical science papers related to psychology in the normal course of keeping abreast with the latest developments in my field. I make this preface to establish that I know of a few established rules in science research that somehow seem to be forgotten or ignored when it comes to the subject of global warming.
One of the first rules is that there must be a clear cause and effect to the research topic. This is known as “construct validity.” For example, I could conduct research showing that cold weather causes an increase in retail sales because of sales spike during the month of December. Of course, as we know by common sense, it is not weather but the Christmas holiday that results in increased consumer spending at that time of the year. Yet common sense seems to be lacking when it comes to global warming, for it is attributed to virtually everything related to the environment. Not a hurricane, tornado, or drought anywhere in the world can be reported without a notation that this is yet another nail in the coffin of the mounting environmental catastrophe caused by global warming. Yet for those who have actually bothered to look at the internals behind the research in this field, it becomes apparent that these natural phenomenon are not much more than natural cycles in the environment.
But, what about Al Gore’s assertion that there has been a sharp spike in recent years in CO2 emissions? Does not this alone prove the dangers posed by mankind to the ecosystem of the earth? Again, in real scientific investigation, the construct validity would need to be met. Does the increase in CO2 constitute a real danger? And second, is there really a correlation between CO2 and human activity? The answer to these two questions are not nearly as clear as the global warming enthusiasts would have us believe. There have been such CO2 spikes in past history with no adverse effects to the environment. Also, the European Union is currently exploring changing the diet of livestock since studies conducted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the alleged world authority on the subject) attributes 18 percent of all greenhouse gases to animals and 14 percent coming from human activity. Is decreasing our use of fossil fuels and increasing solar and wind power going to make a dent in greenhouse gases? And will it make any difference anyway?
The other primary scientific objective is to establish “external validity” which means that the results of particular research can be extrapolated over a wider context. This is where much of the global warming hysteria finds itself. By projecting various conditions into the future, known as models, various scenarios can be envisioned. The fact that the most horrific outcomes are usually those that are reported in the media, and the probability of these scenarios are minuscule at best, is usually lost in the high velocity rhetoric. A growing number of scientists are asking these same hard questions about the lack of integrity being used in this field. They are disturbed that this area is treated differently than other scientific problems.
There are those that declare with certainty,“The research is conclusive – the debate is over.” I have a problem with that attitude. I see a similarity in the 1959 film, “12 Angry Men,” which features one juror voting against the other eleven jurors on a guilty verdict. When asked his reasoning, he stated, “Well, everyone seemed so sure of the boy’s guilt, and I thought to myself that nothing is that certain.” The dissenting juror (played magnificently by Henry Fonda) simply wanted to consider the alternatives before deciding on a final verdict. I think we need to keep our minds open to something that others would like us to close.
Serious environmental issues such as ozone and acid rain have been addressed by effective scientific endeavor in the past decades, and global warming/climate change should be dealt with in the same way. It does no good to simplify the arguments into a ‘the sky is falling’ mantra clothed in scientific language.
I worked for nine years in an academic institution that required its undergraduate as well as graduate students to write a scientific paper in order to graduate. I served as an advisor and an evaluator for hundreds of papers over those years. In addition, I have been forced to read a staggering number of technical science papers related to psychology in the normal course of keeping abreast with the latest developments in my field. I make this preface to establish that I know of a few established rules in science research that somehow seem to be forgotten or ignored when it comes to the subject of global warming.
One of the first rules is that there must be a clear cause and effect to the research topic. This is known as “construct validity.” For example, I could conduct research showing that cold weather causes an increase in retail sales because of sales spike during the month of December. Of course, as we know by common sense, it is not weather but the Christmas holiday that results in increased consumer spending at that time of the year. Yet common sense seems to be lacking when it comes to global warming, for it is attributed to virtually everything related to the environment. Not a hurricane, tornado, or drought anywhere in the world can be reported without a notation that this is yet another nail in the coffin of the mounting environmental catastrophe caused by global warming. Yet for those who have actually bothered to look at the internals behind the research in this field, it becomes apparent that these natural phenomenon are not much more than natural cycles in the environment.
But, what about Al Gore’s assertion that there has been a sharp spike in recent years in CO2 emissions? Does not this alone prove the dangers posed by mankind to the ecosystem of the earth? Again, in real scientific investigation, the construct validity would need to be met. Does the increase in CO2 constitute a real danger? And second, is there really a correlation between CO2 and human activity? The answer to these two questions are not nearly as clear as the global warming enthusiasts would have us believe. There have been such CO2 spikes in past history with no adverse effects to the environment. Also, the European Union is currently exploring changing the diet of livestock since studies conducted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the alleged world authority on the subject) attributes 18 percent of all greenhouse gases to animals and 14 percent coming from human activity. Is decreasing our use of fossil fuels and increasing solar and wind power going to make a dent in greenhouse gases? And will it make any difference anyway?
The other primary scientific objective is to establish “external validity” which means that the results of particular research can be extrapolated over a wider context. This is where much of the global warming hysteria finds itself. By projecting various conditions into the future, known as models, various scenarios can be envisioned. The fact that the most horrific outcomes are usually those that are reported in the media, and the probability of these scenarios are minuscule at best, is usually lost in the high velocity rhetoric. A growing number of scientists are asking these same hard questions about the lack of integrity being used in this field. They are disturbed that this area is treated differently than other scientific problems.
There are those that declare with certainty,“The research is conclusive – the debate is over.” I have a problem with that attitude. I see a similarity in the 1959 film, “12 Angry Men,” which features one juror voting against the other eleven jurors on a guilty verdict. When asked his reasoning, he stated, “Well, everyone seemed so sure of the boy’s guilt, and I thought to myself that nothing is that certain.” The dissenting juror (played magnificently by Henry Fonda) simply wanted to consider the alternatives before deciding on a final verdict. I think we need to keep our minds open to something that others would like us to close.
Serious environmental issues such as ozone and acid rain have been addressed by effective scientific endeavor in the past decades, and global warming/climate change should be dealt with in the same way. It does no good to simplify the arguments into a ‘the sky is falling’ mantra clothed in scientific language.
login to post comments
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License