Warm it up, Mike!

Galileo Galilei is considered to be the father of modern physics. Why? Because he decided to research and draw conclusions independently of the conventional wisdom of the times. In the 1630s, GG published his research that showed the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system. This put him under fire with the Church of the day, since it was considered heretical to suggest that the Earth was not the centerpiece. Yet Galileo, despite the possibility of excommunication and conviction for heresy, boldly moved forward with his work. His dedication to pure science and reason is applauded to this day.

The modern scientific community may exist as a direct result of Galileo's work. However, Galileo would be shocked to see that Science has become what the Church was in his day. In 1632, the Church told GG not to study the solar system because it could go against the scientific consensus. Today, the scientific community tells us that we should not question the theories of "climate change" because they are a matter of scientific consensus too.

I'm not sure what "scientific consensus" means. When I studied science in elementary school, we learned there are theories and there are laws. Nowhere did consensus enter the picture. If something can be proven, it's a law. Otherwise, it's a theory, subject to being tested. I don't remember all the steps in the scientific method, but here's a good approximation:
* Formulate a question
* Develop a hypothesis
* Test the hypothesis
* Make conclusions
Of course, the real world of science is a bit more complex than that. The testing has to meet standards for consistency and elimination of bias, and the conclusions must be reviewed by other scientists. If any part of the process is suspect, then the conclusions may be rendered invalid. This is true no matter how many people may like you, your work, or your ideas. And really, this is how science stays fresh. Albert Einstein challenged not minor theories or conclusions, but the entire framework of the universe. Concepts like time, speed, gravity, and measurement - once thought to be immutable - were challenged and fundamentally altered by Einstein's work. Let's face it: he wasn't challenging some obscure theorist or concept. He went after Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and too many others to list here.

So, in the spirit of Einstein's work, let's challenge, shall we? Global warming is a faith with three major tenets, as I see it. Each tenet is the foundation for the next. Here they are:
1. The temperatures on Earth are rising
2. The cause of the heating is increased greenhouse gas (GHG) levels in the atmosphere
3. The reason GHGs are on the rise is because of mankind's tendency toward industrialization.

Let us put some scrutiny to these ideas. While the Church of the Warming Globe may shade us as heretics, we have to see if it makes sense. I'll explain why in a bit. The first tenet is that it's getting warmer. Is this true? That's a topic of some debate, because methodology makes a big difference. Warmer where? Everywhere? At ground level? In the upper atmosphere? In the polar regions? At the equator? In rural areas? In cities? No question, the climate system here on Earth is complex, so we need to understand if warming is even taking place. Media outlets publicized the notion that 1998 was the warmest year on record, to the point that you can still find reference to this idea all over the internet. However, re-examination of the statistics (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878) has brought forth the conclusion that 1934 is now the warmest. Combine this with the study published in Nature last year that says there will be no warming through at least 2015, and we have to call into question the entire first tenet. Is the world really getting warmer? (Maybe not, I'm still having to scrape ice off my windshield most mornings!)

Second tenet: warming is caused by more GHGs. We know that temperatures are regulated by the balance of two opposing forces: solar radiation heats us up and Earth re-radiation cools us off. The idea in the second tenet is that re-radiation is being held up by the presence of GHGs, which are like a blanket that hold heat in rather than letting it escape. The GHG we usually hear about is carbon dioxide. And the conclusion is that more CO2 means more warming. However, the relationship is not linear; rather, we would expect to see diminishing returns. Imagine a window, holding heat inside your home. If you put a second pane of glass up against the first, it would not double the amount of heat held inside. In the same way, CO2 has diminishing GHG potential. Thus, mathematically speaking, there is a limit to the amount of global warming that can be expected based on increasing GHGs. Do the climate models take into account this factor?

A word on cause-and-effect: it's hard to prove! As a matter of fact, there is a theory that says global warming causes an increase in GHG levels. Since the most prevalent GHG is water vapor, it makes sense that more heat would result in more water vapor being held in the atmosphere.

Third tenet: this is all caused by you and me. As the world has moved to more industry, the rise in GHGs has led to a higher global temperature. This makes sense, but is it backed up by fact? I already mentioned that the warmest year on record was 1934. Should we then infer that 1934 was the year of greatest carbon emissions? This is not likely, since most of the world in 1934 didn't have electricity! And if it were true, then emissions must have dropped significantly thereafter. From the mid-1940s through the early 1970s, there was a strong cooling trend in place. If this is the case, then can we infer that industry slowed down after the Great Depression ended and WWII was settled? We know this is not the case in the US, as the postwar era was some of the biggest sustained economic and industrial growth in our history. And, since the EPA was not even in existence before 1970, we can assume that this growth did not always come in "green" ways!

I remember this cooling trend from my youth. Growing up in one of the strongholds of the radical environmental movement, I heard all through elementary school how air pollution was going to lead us to a new Ice Age.

Of course, there is also the question of the Medieval Warm Period. From 800 to 1300, global temperatures were higher, nearly at 20th-Century levels. Was this the result of industrialization? The obvious "no" tells us there is more to climate change than simple man can put in.

"So, Benito," you may say, "you've poked some holes in the three tenets, but what is the real deal?" I'm going to tell you. I don't know. This is not a major revelation, and for that I apologize. Maybe it's the natural variation in the Sun's output. Maybe it's a decrease in the albedo of airborne particulates due to clean air standards. Maybe it's just random variation that none of us can or should try to control. I'm no climatologist, and I don't plan on becoming one. "So why did you write this article?" I wrote it to be honest. I don't know if the three tenets are true or not. The so-called scientific community should be so considerate to do the same. Call it a theory, an idea, a concept that needs more research before we can fully understand it. But don't throw meaningless terms at me like "scientific consensus". It's insulting.

Finally, why is this important? Because the "scientific consensus" has the potential to take real money out of your pocket. The agenda-pushers are trying to enact controls, limits, and (you guessed it) taxes. If we are to submit to environmental controls, it should be on the basis of sound science rather than conjecture and dogmatic ideology. And, if the US takes up the cross of cap-and-trade legislation, it will weigh down the economy in a time that the economy needs all the help it can get. Let's prioritize, and put this notion at the bottom of the page.