Human-Caused Climate Change and the Scientific Disconnect
It should not be controversial to use the scientific method for such an important and potentially life-altering subject such as our response to climate change.
To begin this new year, I wanted to tackle a subject that has genuinely puzzled me, in that entire societies are placing themselves at risk over theories that don’t stand up to scrutiny and the conversation usually devolves into emotional hysteria.
As part of my electronic engineering degree courses in the early 80s, I took two years of college-level physics in which I was introduced to the scientific method. This is a wonderful tool that allows you to objectively follow facts and logical observations to a place that helps you make sense of the phenomena we experience in our lives.
Understanding the scientific method allows one to come to practical conclusions on the world around us. You begin with an observation and develop questions to be answered. Next, you perform research about the topic and devise a hypothesis, or theory. Then, the theory is tested by performing experiments and, if the theory is correct, the experiments repeatedly produce the same results in support of the theory. Finally, you analyze the results and draw conclusions that are consistent with the results. What you end up with are the fundamental mechanisms that underlie every phenomenon we experience in our lives.
The theory of human caused climate change sounds like an ideal candidate for using the scientific method. So, let’s do it.
You have observed some changes in climate patterns (for example, a longer-than-expected drought in California or ongoing heavy floods in Europe), and then question why this is happening. You note that the buildup of industrialization over the past 100 years or so has nearly doubled the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (from 250 parts per million [ppm] to 440 ppm) and theorize that this is causing today’s climate disruptions.
Now, what experiments have been conducted that prove the atmospheric carbon we are producing from fossil fuels is the leading cause of global climate change? Is there irrefutable evidence that manmade atmospheric carbon is the cause of disruptions in the Earth’s climate?
Computer models have been presented that indicate predicted average global temperatures rising alongside atmospheric carbon content, causing weather patterns to become more unstable and catastrophic events to take place in coastal areas. The ensuing loss of life and environmental damage suggested by such modeling is motivation for taking action to reduce our carbon emissions and forcing fundamental lifestyle changes around the world.
Okay. I acknowledge your computer modeling and interpretations. But because we are not privy to seeing your baseline data and analytical methods due to their “proprietary” value, how are we supposed to accept your predictions without any discussion of how you arrived at those conclusions? We seem to have stopped about two-thirds of the way through the scientific method, in that computer modeling alone isn’t proof of anything beyond an algorithmic guess.
Let’s continue anyway by proceeding through the process, which requires gathering relevant data and making additional observations that are provable and repeatable.
Carbon is a trace gas in the atmosphere, currently at 440 ppm. Visualizing this, it occupies an area similar to that of a 20’ x 20’ corner in a room that is 1,000’ x 1,000’. Is that amount enough to cause atmospheric chaos as suggested? Has even a doubling of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere in the last 100 years produced changes in climate that would not have happened naturally?
And how much of that additional carbon was produced strictly by human activity? In 1950 the earth’s population was around 2.5 billion. Today, we estimate having almost 8 billion people in the world. It’s a stretch to say the exhaling of more than triple the globe’s population is a factor in the 100-year doubling of the world’s CO2, but should it not even be considered?
We already know that nuclear power energy generation is carbon free, does not require the massive amount of land needed similarly as solar and wind power, and fourth generation nuclear can keenly re-use and handle waste product better than previous generations. If it is carbon emissions we are trying to reduce while having a smaller impact on the environment, why is the adding of nuclear power not even being considered?
Water vapor comprises 95% of our atmosphere and is therefore the most plentiful and influential greenhouse gas. Should we not understand that water vapor has a much larger impact on our climate than carbon and act accordingly?
Is there another explanation for climate change phenomenon? Could it be that natural fluctuations in solar activity, including the presence or absence of sunspots and solar winds, as well as the asymmetrical orbit and axis-tilting of the Earth around the Sun, are a more fundamental cause of climate change?
How does one explain earlier periods of global temperature warming such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval, which happened when the population was much smaller and well before man began using carbon-based fuels? Are we to believe that whatever caused those earlier warming periods, each 1,000 years apart, stopped warming the planet 100 years ago and that human generated carbon emissions took its place?
What I find unfortunate is that many of the aforementioned provable climate variables are excluded from the hypothetical computer models embraced by many researchers, politicians, and corporate interests. It’s almost as if they are interested in the conclusion but not the process of reaching that conclusion.
In 2021, green energy attracted $775 billion in investments. The U.S. recently passed legislation to spend an additional $369 billion on climate change projects. Could it be that there are institutions and corporations counting on cashing in on the massive amount of dollars to be spent in pursuit of “green” initiatives?
Does questioning the validity of the stated causes of climate change or suggesting a financial motive make me a “climate denier?” Such a heretical reference has a place in some religious doctrine but it has no place in science.
By all means, I would not suggest that water vapor and natural fluctuations in solar activity and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are the only climate influencers that matter. There is certainly an impact we humans have on the environment, and much can be learned and changed as to how we consume resources and generate energy. On that we can agree and work together to evolve.
But I know this much: There is a climate threat for sure. It is the extreme danger of basing policy decisions at government and corporate levels on sketchy grounds that are mostly untested beyond computer modeling. To now claim that we are in a climate emergency and we have run out of time to properly go through the scientific method is reckless; you need to come to conclusions that are rooted in time-tested fact, not theory that is being rushed through, before demanding arbitrary reductions to energy consumption and the corresponding reduction in quality of life. Europe is experiencing this in real time; America needs to pump the brakes and look to real solutions.
Using the scientific method to tackle the question of climate change can bring a more pragmatic atmosphere (no pun intended) to the conversation. We can have a more accurate fix on the actual threats, take practical measures that will not compromise our livelihoods and eventually come to conclusions that are based on scientific discipline; not manufactured conjecture for financial benefit or broadened control over entire populations.
The scientific method has given us a rich legacy of human technical progress and an unprecedented quality of life through curiosity, observation, and logical restraint. It should not be controversial to expect this treatment for such an important and potentially life-altering subject such as our response to climate change. If, in fact, there is anything we can do about it.