The prevailing narrative by members of the climate establishment is the assertion that the science is settled. This is a tactic to stifle debate and informed discussion. Anyone who challenges the narrative is subject to pejorative characterizations — denier, skeptic.
What these advocates avoid discussing is the fact that science is never settled. Newton’s theory of gravity was replaced after almost 300 years by Einstein’s theory of relativity in the early 1900s. Scientists are still trying to identify its limits and extend it. An article in Physics Today stated, “Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work.” That is an important statement about all science.
Experimental evidence is the criterion for confirming or rejecting a theory, according to the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper. The general premise is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman in his famous lectures on physics made the point very clear. First, we make guesses about the new theory, then we compute the consequences of the guesses and compare them with observations. “If it (the guess) disagrees with the experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
These two points about falsifiability and comparing experiments with observations are the Achilles heel of the settled science assertion and it underlying assumptions.
Recent testimony by Professor John Christy (U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 2 Feb 2016 John R. Christy University of Alabama Huntsville) demonstrated that the “climate theory” has been “falsified.” That theory is embodied in models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Christy presented a comparison of more than 100 model runs by the IPCC’s latest model and temperature data from weather balloons and satellites compiled by three different organizations. The model greatly overestimated atmospheric warming. If the model is wrong, so must be the theory that it represents.
There are two primary reasons why. First, the warming potential of CO2 is non-linear, which means that the amount of warming from an increase in atmospheric concentrations is less than increases that preceded it. Second, the actual warming that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s is less than would be predicted by the increase in CO2 concentrations.
This leads to the second reason. The models are based on a flawed assumption of climate sensitivity, the warming associated with a doubling of CO2. Empirical evidence demonstrates that sensitivity is less than assumed; hence, future warming will also be less and not apocalyptic.
Some critics dismiss satellite data, remarking that we live on the earth’s surface, not where the satellites are. But, Christy in his testimony rebutted that objection with science — “they (satellites) actually measure microwave radiation from oxygen, the intensity of which is directly proportional to the temperature of the oxygen. This is similar to modern doctors using ear probes measuring emitted radiation to measure a patient’s temperature …”
In his testimony, Christy got to the heart of the climate debate: How well do we understand climate change? If, as the climate advocates assert, we understand it because the science is settled, it should be possible to predict its behavior. We can’t, and claims to the contrary instill fear, waste scarce resources and lead to flawed policies, and damage the scientific enterprise.
Changes in climate can cause real problems, like sea level rise in the Tidewater area. The route to effectively addressing them lies in real science and not pseudo science used to drive special interest agendas.
Bill O’Keefe is president of Solutions Consulting. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
