Ecology

Physicist Howard Hayden, who is no doubt and excellent physicist in his field, wrote this letter, addressed to Lisa P. Jackson of the EPA.

I personally think that the whole “science is settled” is bad marketing. But Dr. Hayden’s claim is a shocking claim for a physicist to make. He writes:

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

But this is a complete contradiction of the truth in his own field. The theory of relativity has been considered “settled” (to the extent that anything is ever “settled” in science) for a very long time. Yet, it fails to accurately predict some observable phenomena. Living alongside relativity is quantum theory, which also fails to accurately predict some observable phenomena. More to the point, both of these theories, when applied to certain kinds of questions that they should be able to answer, come up with the wrong answer. Sometimes relativity is applied, sometimes quantum physics applied. Science, even physics, works with more than one theoretical model.

Oh, and by the way, both of those two models conflict with Newton’s model, which was considered to be “settled” for many years before Einstein. When the data no longer supports the model, physicists change the model. Now they are on to string theory.

I am giving Dr. Hayden the benefit of the doubt even to take the argument in this direction. The “models” discussed in the Endangerment Finding are attempts to model specific scenarios. “Running a model” – that is, putting data into a theoretical model then doing the math – must necessarily be done with some unknowns included. So running the model multiple times putting different values for the unknowns yields different results. This is the meaning of “models” in the context of the report. That’s not bad science, it’s simply a way to test the likely outcomes based on the data that you do have, and taking your best shot at the data you are missing. When you get that far, there is still more data that you don’t even know you need. Models are, by their very definition, not the same as the real thing.

According to wikipedia, the Large Hadron Collider cost $9 billion. If science could perfectly predict everything based on theories, why spend the money on such a device? We do it because we DON’T know that our models are perfect, and we don’t know that our data is perfect and we don’t know that our calculations are perfect. The scientists who actually study climate change generally recognize what they are doing for what it is – it is models based on the best data that they have been able to assemble. Most of them don’t say “this is settled” in the sense that “there is no possibility that we are wrong”. If they say “this is settled”, they mean “this is the best understanding we have at the moment, there is a very strong consensus on that, and we are going to continue to study the science with the basic understanding that this is what is going on. We will keep modifying the model to match the data as time goes on.” It is exactly the same way all other science is done, and it is done that way because it is productive and fruitful.

I honestly am discouraged by the total failure of critical thinking that goes into Dr. Hayden’s final talking point. He trips over his own words, and seems to miss it completely. “The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data.”

Yes, that is EXACTLY correct, and yet his interpretation of what that means is EXACTLY the opposite of what it really does mean. Scientists study stuff, work with models (aka theories), and when the data no longer supports the model, the model is changed. In this case, a young science called the phenomenon “global warming.” As the science progressed, the science realized that this term did not accurately describe what they saw, so they changed it.

I don’t know how anyone can fail to recognize the fact that the “climate change denyers” criticize climate change scientist both for sticking to their guns and for changing their minds.

As much as anyone, I don’t want climate change to be true. And I want the government interference that climate change encourages much less than most people do. What I want to believe has nothing whatsoever to do with what truth is. Poor arguments made by the likes of Dr. Hayden discourage me because people who want to believe their message don’t see that these guys are doing exactly the same thing that they are accusing the other side of doing.

Whatever the truth may be about the climate, I am far more concerned about the fact that people are so willing to buy a bad argument, as long as the argument supports what they want to believe.

Mike Adams wrote this article claiming that the government isn’t mistaken in it’s claims about climate change, rather, the government is intentionally committing fraud in their claims about climate change. Here is my response.

I’m no one’s apologist, but I can’t tolerate dishonesty or stupidity on either side of this debate.

Under the section “Here’s the proof of the climate change fraud” – I overlaid the two graphs one on top of the other, and they are nearly identical. They look different, because the spike that begins about 1998 keeps going up from 1998 to about 2001. One graph ends earlier than the other. You can try it yourself, you’ll find the same result.

Mike Adams writes “This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.” I’ll be a little kinder, and say that maybe it isn’t fraud that Mike Adams is committing, maybe he’s just not very good at reading graphs.

Under the section entitled “EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax” – I’m no expert here. In fact, I had to look up the term “heat index”. The first result of a google search for “heat index” was this page, where we find the graph that Mr. Adams used. The EPA – one of the agencies generally accused of attempting to perpetrate the fraud of climate change – isn’t trying to hide this graph. Why? Because a “heat wave index” isn’t the same as “average temperature”. Indeed, climate scientists expect erratic weather behavior as a result of anthropogenic climate change. The fact that the conditions which brought on the dust bowl happen to have had an impact on heat waves is interesting, but probably irrelevant to the conversation.

I could continue the critique, but I think it is clear that the author of the study is either willfully deceitful, or genuinely does not understand what he is talking about.