OK, let me start by stating that I am well aware that, for a great many people, this is an emotional subject. If you happen to be one of those people who gets emotional over the issue of ‘Climate Change,’ I am going to ask you to try to set your emotions aside for a few minutes while we examine whether or not we are actually dealing with a matter of science, or if there just might be a hidden agenda hiding behind this issue.
Again, if you are one of the many people who have strong emotional feelings about the question of ‘Climate Change,’ let me ask you a couple questions. How do you feel about the specific gravity of Carbon? How emotional do you get when people discuss the strength of chemical bonding? Does the moment of inertia of your car cause you anxiety when you drive down the road? I trust the answer to all of these questions is no, but do you understand why it is no? It is no because science, true science, is without emotion: or at least, it’s supposed to be (if it’s not, then it’s not science).
So, why do so many people become so emotional over the question of ‘Climate Change?’ There is actually an answer to this question, and I’ll get to it at the end of this post. First, let’s look to see if we can determine if there is any sound science involved in the debate over ‘Climate Change.’ We’ll do this by using another investigative technique: by applying simple logic to determine whether or not the scientific method has been properly applied to the investigation of ‘Climate Change.’
The first thing we have to understand is that ‘science,’ like logic, is nothing more than a method of investigating a question about the world around us. And, like logic, it has rules that must be diligently followed. In logic, if we break a rule, it is called a fallacy, and it can mean that everything else that follows is useless. Well, the same thing applies to science. If the rules are not faithfully followed, whatever conclusions are drawn afterward are suspect, at best. So let’s look at a few of the scientific rules that are key to the question of ‘Climate Change.’
First, before a person can determine whether or not something is changing, they must determine the ‘normal’ state of that thing. For example: the ‘normal’ temperature of the human body is considered to be 98.6’F. However, there are variances to this value. For some people, their ‘normal’ body temperature might be a little lower or a little higher than 98.6’F. This means we cannot set a fixed number for something like the ‘normal’ temperature of the human body. Instead, we have to set a range. Now, can anyone tell me what the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth is, and what the range of variation is? I’ll help you: the answer is no! No one has any idea what the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth is, or what the normal variation is, either — and that is a fact. This means no one can tell you whether the temperature of the earth is higher or lower than it should be, because they do not know what it should be to being with.
Next question: what is the normal ‘Life Cycle’ of the earth? We believe we know that the earth has gone through periods where it was much hotter than it is today, but also much colder. We also believe these periods of warming and cooling are cyclical: they repeat over a period of many thousands of years. So, what is the normal ‘Life Cycle” of the earth? How often does it reach its hottest point, and what temperature is that? And how often does it reach its coldest point? And what temperature is that?
Another question: we believe that this cycle of heating and cooling has been going on for many millions of years before man existed on this planet. So, what caused the warming? And what caused the cooling?
Now, I have said we believe we know the earth has been hotter and colder, but we do not actually know this to be true. We can only assume. This is because we were not present millions of years ago, so we could not make actual observations. All we can do is study the earth as it exists today and extrapolate what it might have been like in the past. In other words, we are making a ‘scientific guess.’ Now, I am not saying that these guesses are not valid. In many cases, they are based on sound theory, but on theory none the less. And a theory is — by definition — a guess. It may be based on a large volume of observations, and all of those observations may suggest that a certain conclusion is reasonable, but that does not prove the conclusion is true. Unless we can actually observe it, then it will always remain a theory, and a theory is a guess. So our best guess suggests the earth has gone through regular heating and cooling periods long before man existed.
So, assuming we have guessed correctly, and the earth does go through a regular cycle of heating and cooling, what caused them before man? Now, before you answer, let me ask you what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? I can remember when ‘science’ had ‘proven’ it was an ice age? Now ‘science’ has ‘proven’ it was a large meteorite strike. How about the smallest particle of matter? Do you remember the progression of ‘proof’ ‘science’ took us through with that? First, there was the molecule, then the atom, then the electron, proton and neutron, then quarks and lipids, now there are even smaller particles. So, what caused the dinosaurs to die off and what is the smallest particle of matter? If a person is honest, the answer is, “We don’t know for sure, but the best evidence suggests…” What does ‘suggests’ mean? It means we are making a guess! And before anyone objects by saying we will eventually learn the ultimate truth of these questions, please understand that you do not know that. That statement is, itself, an assumption — a guess.
This brings us to the next problem in the question of ‘Climate Change”‘ the problem of ‘assumption.’ Let’s assume the earth is heating up and we have discovered that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. Why do we just assume the CO2 is the reason for the rise in temperature? There may be a correlation, but that does not mean causality. By that, I mean the presence of CO2 does not necessarily mean that CO2 is causing the rise in the temperature. It could very well be a byproduct of the temperature increase. Here’s another way to look at the problem. If you come upon a car accident and you discover the driver of one of the cars involved has a broken leg, do you assume broken legs cause car accidents? I mean, why not. Now all we have to do is make it illegal to drive with a broken leg and there you go: no more car accidents. Now, I know this is an absurd illustration, but the point is valid. We do not know whether the CO2 is actually causing the temperature increase (if there actually is one), or whether it is a byproduct of that increase.
At this point, I can already hear people arguing that ‘greenhouse gases’ cause temperature increases, and that man is the cause of those greenhouse gases. To that I say: that is just a theory, and a theory is a guess! And, in this case, not a very valid guess. Why do I say that? Because we cannot control for the gases without first knowing — beyond shadow of a doubt — what caused the earth to warm and cool before man existed. If you do not know the causes in the past, you cannot control for them today. Furthermore, we have not demonstrated tat man is actually the cause of any additional CO2 that may or may not be in the atmosphere. Until we know the cause of warming and cooling in the past, and can demonstrate that man is the cause of any additional CO2, the greenhouse gas theory is not only a guess, but a bad guess. It is a bad guess because it is based on several levels of unproven assumptions, therefore, it cannot accurately be tested.
The scientific method requires that we be able to observe, form hypotheses (guesses), then test to prove or disprove our hypotheses. In fact, this is a key part of the scientific method. Without the ability to test, there is no science. But how can one test something one does not fully understand? We don’t know all the variables involved in the warming and cooling of the earth, so how can we control for them? We can’t, and it is not only arrogant to say we can, it is bad science. We do not know the ‘normal’ temperature of the earth. We do not know what caused the earth to warm and cool before man existed. We do not know whether CO2 is a cause or product of warmer temperatures. We do not know if man is actually the cause of increased CO2. And we have absolutely no idea what variables may be vital to this entire system that we have yet to discover or fully appreciate, which means, we do not fully understand the process of global warming and cooling. If we need evidence that my argument is valid, we need only look at the computer models. They programmed by people who support the ‘Climate Change’ theory, but they still fail to prove the predictions. This means, even when programmed by the people most sympathetic to and most invested in the theory, the tests fail to support the hypotheses. Under the rules of good science, this means the hypotheses have been proven wrong. So how, in good conscience, can we then say that this is ‘settled science’ when there is no sound way to prove any of this?
There’s one more thing I need to mention. A ‘consensus‘ is not sound science. There was a time when the ‘scientific consensus‘ said that blacks were of ‘inferior’ genetic material to whites. Now, if a ‘consensus‘ makes something true, then was ‘science’ right back then? And if so, then are they correct today, or did the facts change because the ‘consensus‘ changed? Because, if facts can change just because of a majority opinion, then let’s all decide that gravity repulses matter so we can all fly. Yes, I am using strong illustrations, but I am doing so for a reason. The reason is simple: you cannot support the ‘Climate Change’ ‘consensus‘ unless you accept the inferiority of blacks and our ability to revers gravity by ‘consensus.’ To accept the former and reject the latter would be logically inconsistent, or, in other words, un-scientific!
This brings us to the last point I’d like to make about the scientific method before I close. Sound science demands that we follow the evidence, not bend the evidence to fit our desires. In other words, if the most sympathetic ‘Climate Change’ ‘scientists’ cannot designs models that accurately predict and then demonstrate their theories, they must abandon their theories and look for new one. The quest to turn lead into gold is a good example. After centuries of failure, we finally accepted that the hypothesis was flawed and abandoned our attempts to turn lead into gold. Sadly, we have a difficult time doing this when we are emotionally invested in our theories. Socialism would be another excellent example. It doesn’t work. It can’t, because it violates the Natural Laws of economics. Yet, for reasons other than science, people keep trying to make it work. There are many such examples in the field of ‘science,’ and ‘Climate Change’ is among them. Now, I am not saying that the climate isn’t changing, or that man is not adding to that change. In fact, I believe both are happening. All I am saying is that we cannot say that man is the sole cause of that change, and, if he is, how — exactly — he is changing the climate. For all we know, we’re improving it. We simply do not and cannot know for sure, and a good (i.e. honest) scientist will admit this (and many of them have, the media just will not tell you about them).
That brings us to the end of this post. I promised to answer the question of why people get so emotional over supposedly ‘scientific’ matters. Well, the answer is simple, but it is also unpopular. People get emotional because they are appealing to the idea of ‘science’ to camouflage an agenda — period! If their claim to ‘science’ is destroyed, then there agenda is exposed. If an agenda has to be hidden, then there is a reason for it. Usually it is because people will not support the agenda. Therefore, the camouflage must be protected or the agenda will be exposed, the people will reject it, and the agenda will fail. This is why people get emotional over things that should be devoid of all emotion. There’s even a valid method of testing my claim. Look for and follow the trail of money and or power attached to anything supposedly driven by ‘science.’ If you find a flow of money and/or power, you have found an agenda hiding behind a claim to ‘science,’ not an actual matter of real science (I mean, seriously, think about it: why would real science need public funding if it actually generated power and cash?).
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 
Hit the nail on the head (AGAIN). Thanks!