The current debate on Global Warming illustrates just how ignorant the masses are of epistemology and scientific induction. Every assertion which fits their preconceived notions is instantly afforded factual status without any further inquiry or debate. When met with conflicting information, they bend it to suit their needs, rather than admit that their knowledge is rather superficial and possibly erroneous. It is beyond the current level of our current understanding to state unequivocally that fossil fuels have caused or will cause any warming at all.
That climatologists can claim the global temperature will be .8 degrees warmer in a 100 years when they can’t tell me tomorrow’s weather simply defies logic. Al Gore shared his Nobel Prize with other IPCC scientists, including John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, who certainly does not share Gore’s or the masses’ certainty. Mr. Christy wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after receiving his prize, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” As a scientist, he understands the inherent difficulty in trying to understand and predict global climate change, “There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and whyMother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us.”
Just to illustrate the fallibility of the most basic tenet of Global Warming enthusiasts, “increases in CO2 cause increases in temperature”, let’s look a bit deeper at the facts. Take a look at this link showing global climate temperatures and CO2 concentrations for the past 400,000 years:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/climatechart.pdf
One might first want to question the accuracy of data points from 400,000 years ago; one might wonder why there is so much panic with such great variations in the past, before man even stepped on the planet; one might wonder what other factors might also come into play. Nevertheless, if we take this at face value, there is unquestionably a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation. Simply because two things are correlated does not mean one causes the other. If you look closely at the graph you may find it striking that the CO2 line lags the temperature line. Maybe there is a reverse causation, perhaps rising temperatures from an exogenous source, perhaps the sun, causes CO2 to increase. This may come as a surprise to the layperson, but not to any scientist, for CO2 solubility decreases with rising temperature:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html
If indeed the natural energy variability of the sun initiated a temperature rise on Earth, the laws of physics show that the CO2 stored in our oceans (which incidentally stores 93% of the worlds CO2 http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html) would have to be released. A correlation between temperature change and CO2 concentration is undeniable, but scientific induction would more likely favor that it is temperature change that is the causative factor, not vice versa as the Global Warming enthusiast would lead you to believe.
Nevertheless, despite the uncertainty and clear contradictory evidence, the environmentalists cannot get our politicians to act fast enough, from the Kyoto Protocol to the Energy Bill of 2007, and from what abomination is surely soon to come, our lives will be severely impacted for the worse. While the benefit of the burdens that are being forced upon us are unclear, the harm will be tangible, clear and certain. Skyrocketing costs will hinder the economy, prevent growth, cause unemployment, stymie investment, and reduce the quality of life for every man.
