Global Warming: Where is the Science in the Inquiry?

Someone once wrote, and I paraphrase here, that a scientific conclusion is when two or more qualified individuals, who have no agenda other than to find truth based on facts, observe the same set of data and independently reach the same result. Moreover, the result should be repeatable and conclusive to all such qualified individuals.

According to the prominent and highly regarded scientist of the seventeenth century, René Descartes, everything should be doubted unless it can be proven to be true under all circumstances.

Albert Einstein wrote, "Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary."

In other words, a valid scientific conclusion is not a subject for debate. It is what is, not what we would like it to be.

The problem with the global warming debate is just that, it is a debate, not a scientific investigation. Positions are taken based on political beliefs and not necessarily on facts. Statements of cause and proposed solutions come from politicians, Al Gore and others, who have a political or philosophical stake in the issue. It is important to keep in mind that among these people there is no search for the truth, only a search for political advantage.

Scientists do agree that there has been a clear trend of increasing surface temperatures around the world over the last thirty years or so. Before that time, however, in the 1970's, there was a belief among many scientists, widely reported in the press, that we were headed into a new ice age. Here, too, there had been a clear trend of decreasing temperatures around the globe.

NEWSWEEK magazine, in its April 28, 1975 issue, presented a story entitled, "The Cooling World," in which they warned of, "... ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change," this based on data that showed "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968."

Well, it never happened. NEWSWEEK retracted that story in 2006. Now it's global warming.

Just how much of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by human activity?

According to the Earth Policy Institute: "Rising temperatures are due primarily to the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from the burning of increasing amounts of fossil fuels. Once released into the atmosphere, CO2 traps heat that would otherwise escape back into space. And emissions of CO2 have been rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760, causing temperatures to climb."

But, on the other hand, according to studies presented on the website:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html, CO₂ is not at all a major contributor_.

"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

And, not to be left out of the debate, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist at the renowned Russian Academy of Sciences tells us that starting from 2012, the process of global cooling will start on the Earth and by the middle of 21st century the whole planet will be captured by low temperatures. For his views go to

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml

One wonders if these groups are looking at the same data, or are they simply advocating what they would like the rest of us to believe because, somehow, through jobs or research grants, there is money in it for them. Perhaps they enjoy the fame that comes from being controversial, or maybe they are just motivated by some philosophy or other.

The point is that, although there is agreement that the world is getting warmer, there is no agreement about the cause of the phenomenon, or how long it might last. Yet there are proposals being floated designed to rein it in and these proposals, mostly based on the Kyoto Accords, require reductions in energy use to the extent that the US economy would surely be damaged and our way of life, and that of many others, would be transformed to conform to the vision of the world's environmental groups.

All this even though the science, as defined above, does not exist. Moreover, if Khabibullo Abdusamatov, of the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the last thing we want to do is interfere with the warming trend we are now enjoying.

All that being said, let me add my own contribution to the debate, and be warned, this is not a conclusion based on science. Recall walking through a wooded area or even across a grassy place and how cool it was underfoot even on the warmest summer day. It's one of the reasons people enjoy Central Park and other such facilities.

On the other hand, think of the heat coming up from a paved parking lot, driveway, the roof of your house, the top of your car or any hard surface. The difference is that the natural surface absorbed the sun's heat and converted it into some sort of vegetation. Hard surfaces reflect the energy back into the atmosphere.

How much does that phenomenon contribute to global warming? I don't know, but in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, where I live, it is estimated by the state environmental agency that about 18% of the surface is now a hard surface, be it a building, parking area, highway, airport, railroad, etc., all reflecting the energy of the sun back to the atmosphere. Seventy five years ago it was probably a negligible amount. Anne Arundel County is a fairly well developed region, of course, but it is not a city where the paved area would approach 100%.

In my opinion we should do nothing more than we are now doing until we are more certain that our actions are based on scientific knowledge.