|
by Patrick Barrett,
Speaking Out
People who believe in global warming like to cite the scientific consensus behind it. However, as Galileo and Einstein can tell you, science is not a democracy.
When people point to a majority opinion in matters of science, it’s because they don’t have proof. In the case of predicting climate change, they use the same kinds of models as they use to predict tomorrow’s weather – it’s often based on speculation and past events in order to predict trends. And how often is the weather report accurate?
Who decides on the “consensus,” anyway? The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claimed the support of 2,000 scientists. But imagine the surprise of Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute when he saw his name on the list. First, he is an expert in malaria. Second, he doesn’t agree with the report. His name was removed only after he threatened legal action.
And James Spann, a meteorologist for 29 years, had something to say about the consensus when a climatologist for The Weather Channel proposed revoking the credentials of weather forecasters who don’t buy into global warming. An op–ed piece Spann wrote said that of the “dozens and dozens” of weather forecasters he knows across the country, none “buy into the man–made global warming hype.”
Aside from citing a consensus, another common tactic is attacking someone’s credentials rather than that person’s ideas. Instead of responding to an argument with a logical explanation, he or she might say: “You’re not a climatologist! Your ideas don’t matter!” Besides ignoring the many climatologists who disagree with global warming, this degrades scientific debate by launching personal attacks – and avoiding the topic at hand.
Climate change theory relies heavily on these graphs of average global temperature. You’ve probably them showing temperatures of the past 10, 100 or even 2,000 years. Ever think of where that information comes from? According to globalwarmingart.com, which publishes climate change images, there are 2,277 active temperature stations on Earth – about one station for every 86,000 square miles. If they were evenly distributed, three little thermometers would cover an area the size of Texas.
But they aren’t. Some continent–sized areas of oceans have no temperature stations at all. And most stations are near cities, where temperatures are higher because buildings, roads and artificial surfaces retain heat. No one knows with any certainty the exact average global temperature right now – yet graphs show data spanning the last two millennia.
Ice ages have come and gone without our help. More recently, between 1992 and 2003, East Antarctica gained 45 billion tons of ice. Sleet and snow have dampened or postponed many global warming conferences and protests. This is the coldest April on record in the United States. Remember the “global cooling” crisis of the ’70s? No? Good. These are just a few of the reasons Al Gore has avoided publicly debating anyone on global warming.
You’re probably already sold on this “global warming” thing. But in 30 years, someone will fabricate the next great environmental disaster, hoping you would have forgotten this one.
When that happens, do me a favor: Try to remember that the empty theories, hypocritical celebrities and pandering politicians of your college days were actually accepted. Those people who personified the worst aspects of politics, science and celebrity were not a satirical creation of Jonathan Swift you read about, but were actually the faces you saw on the news every day.
Maybe then we can focus on something important.
Patrick Barrett is a junior majoring in Russian. His column appears on Mondays.
|
