BAD SCIENCE IN
GLOBAL WARMING

 

 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be more bad science in the Global Warming argument than in any other place. But the real problem is that there is very little real science visible among all of the hokum. It's time to start demanding the real science, instead of the garbage the environmentalists and politicians are cranking out.

For information on recognizing bad science, look at the following sites:

Recognizing bad science

Bad Reasoning

The kinds of bad science listed on Recognizing Bad Science are found in the Global Warming mess:

The following is an in-depth analysis of each of the breaches of scientific rigor:

Have the results been verified by an independent study?

While some studies claim to be independent verification, there are two reasons why they can't be considered to be full independent verification:

  1. If the original science is bad, verification of the same bad science doesn't count.
  2. The scientists who did the verification are probably not disinterested.

Announcement without verification carries a huge responsibility. The announcements of cold fusion and the carcinogen nature of cyclamates were made without verification. The scientists who announced these are now held in disrepute, because both claims have been refuted.

Was a link of correlation misrepresented as link of causality?

Most of the evidence presented is of this nature. No causality has been proved at this writing. Yet, the politicians pushing for expensive measures to prevent this "global catastrophe" are presenting correlations as causality.

Likewise, these "scientists" found a correlation between the increase in carbon dioxide, and the increase in temperature. They then ASSUMED that there is a causal connection (False cause)

Scientists also once attributed the disease rickets to genetic heredity. They observed that the disease occurred in certain families, but not others. We now know that rickets is caused by malnutrition, and that it was poverty, not rickets, that was inherited.

Were predicted results of an effect used to prove the effect itself?

Unfortunately, the majority of the arguments being presented are of this invalid form (Affirming the consequent). They include the following statements:

  1. The theory of Global Warming predicts melting icecaps. The icecaps are melting. Therefore, Global Warming is true.
  2. The theory of Global Warming predicts an increased frequency of severe hurricanes. We had a record year of severe hurricanes. Therefore, Global Warming is true.
  3. The theory of Global Warming predicts warmer winters. We had some warmer winters. Therefore, Global Warming is true.
  4. The theory of Global Warming predicts earlier springs. Flowers are coming out in February. Therefore, Global Warming is true.
  5. Too much carbon dioxide causes global warming. Global warming causes melting icecaps. The icecaps are melting. Therefore, there is too much carbon dioxide.

BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT!

These are examples of the fallacious argument mode called Affirming the consequent. See the following web page for more on Affirming the Consequent:

Bad Reasoning.

Examples of Affirming the Consequent:

You can see here that Affirming the Consequent makes no sense in everyday life. Somebody else could have been driving drunk, and crashed into Tim's car. Jane's ex-husband could have been unfaithful. Bob could have disobeyed the boss. So Affirming the Consequent doesn't work.

This means that Affirming the Consequent can't be valid in Global Warming research either. But the only kind of evidence the Global Warming researchers can find is evidence of consequents. So they present what they found, and count on unscientific people to take the Global Warming ball and run with it.

Affirming the Consequent has some value if, when they vary the causative factor, they observe a concurrent variation in the caused factor. But in such a case, they have eliminated all other possible causes. Global Warming experts can't play with the climate like that without causing devastation, so they can't use that type of observation.

The only way any of the above arguments can be proved to be true is if Global Warming can be proved to be the ONLY possible cause of EACH of the above effects (Process of elimination). But there ARE other possible causes:

So there are other possible causes for the observed effects. Thus, most of their evidence for Global Warming isn't really proof.

Were statistics or social-science methods used to get physical science results?

For some unknown reason, Environmentalists seem to use and abuse statistics more than any other political groups. This is because they are mostly politicians and political scientists, not physical scientists. They learn the rudiments of science and statistics in Political Science classes, which are designed for the study of human behavior. They don't realize that the physical sciences require more rigorous methods.

They also use statistics because they can't play with the climate like physical scientists can set up physical experiments. But this means that they can't be nearly as certain of their findings as physical scientists can be.

Were data that do not support the desired theory deliberately thrown out?

The "Concerned Scientists" threw away entire sets of collected data that do not support their belief that Global Warming is real and is caused by man. This was shown to be the case by the leaked emails. Many of them claim that the data were "flawed" in the same way they claim the elections were "rigged" because their candidate didn't win.

Rejecting data that don't fit the desired theory is the worst form of bad science. It ceases altogether to be scientific activity, and openly displays a drive to get a desired result at any cost. This is proof that they want Global Warming to be true for ulterior reasons.

Did the researcher fail to have a control group?

When dealing with the real environment, they can't have a "control earth" to use as an independent subject. There is only one planet Earth, and they can't play with its independent variables to test their theories.

So Global Warming research can't have the advantages of controlled experiments. Instead, they use computer simulations of dubious value.

Was the researcher pressed to complete the study within a budget or a period of time?

They think they are under a great time pressure. Because they are so afraid of their own predictions of doom, they think that every second is vital to "save the earth."

They are also short on funds, because most sources of funding for scientific research don't believe them. So they have to skimp on their research methods, because they don't have the money to do it right.

Was there any financial or other pressure to find a certain result?

There are several pressures to find the result that Global Warming is caused by man:

  1. The fear of their own prediction makes them want evidence, so they can demand corrective action from government.
  2. There are several earth-worship and nature-worship religions that are active in the US, including some kinds of Environmentalism. According to them, most kinds of technology "desecrate" the earth.
  3. There are those who would use Global Warming to achieve their own ends. They include politicians, Socialists, and those who would make money from Global Warming "solutions."

Did the researchers have an ax to grind?

There are several axes being ground:

  1. The belief that technology desecrates the earth is definitely an ax to grind.
  2. Scientists who do not have an ax to grind won't bother to do any research on Global Warming without being paid to do the work.
  3. Politicians are using Global Warming to win elections through scare tactics.
  4. Socialists have used Environmentalist arguments in the past for the purpose of getting the socialist governments they want.

The ax grindings are piling up.

Was some factor overlooked?

There are many factors that have been overlooked in the "research" into Global Warming, and in statements made demanding government action:

  1. One "expert" on network TV said that if just the icepack on the Arctic Ocean completely melted, it would raise sea level by three feet.1

    The problem with this claim is that it is contradicted by the laws of floating bodies. A floating body displaces its weight in water. A sunken body displaces its volume in water. But when the sunken material IS water, it displaces both its weight and its volume at the same time. So when the ice melts, it doesn't displace any more water than it did before. The sea level would not change. (Ice resting on land is a different case.)

  2. An experiment often quoted as evidence that man has greatly increased the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is the analysis of air trapped in ice in the arctic.1 Duplicate experiments were performed in the Alps and in Antarctica.2 But the Environmentalists made the erroneous assumption that ice totally seals in the air trapped inside it.

    In reality, ice removes carbon dioxide from the trapped air by forming either carbonic acid ice or a clathrate. The carbonic acid ice can then diffuse slowly through the water ice to a location where there is sea water, rock, or air at a lower pressure. Or it can stay frozen in the vicinity of the trapped air. Because of this, it is not released into the collection bottle with the trapped air. The clathrate can sequester the carbon dioxide, preventing it from being analyzed with the trapped air.

  3. Environmentalists cite a 1/2 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature measurements over the last 300 years. They use this as evidence that Global Warming is actually occurring.

    But they are ignoring the following factors:

    • The 1/2 degree rise is less than the accuracy of the instruments used by most of the people recording temperatures at the beginning of the period.
    • Measurements were taken mostly at airports since commercial aviation started needing the data. But airports are increasingly being paved. The pavement causes a LOCAL increase of temperature in the vicinity of the weather instruments.
    • In 1901, Fahrenheit measurements were redefined to be an exact conversion equation to and from Celsius measurements as a part of the United States signing the Treaty of the Metre. This introduces errors into measurements taken before that year.
  4. Environmentalists cite the fact that Ice Shelf Larson B "fell" into the sea.

    If it really FELL, that means the sea level is lower, not higher.

  5. Many claim that man is the only possible cause of Global Warming.

    There are several other theories that refute this.

  6. Politicians are definitely using Global Warming as a scare tactic, to win elections and political arguments (Appeal to force).

    This is one of the best reasons to doubt the veracity of Global Warming.

Is the direness of one possible outcome affecting researcher objectivity?

This is definitely happening, fueled by the use of Global Warming scare tactics for political purposes (Appeal to force). This is affecting both researchers and the public. They react emotionally, rather than logically.

Words such as "danger," "afraid," "worry," "dire," "alarming," "helpless," "feeling," "domino effect," "risk," and "under attack," are in their arguments.

Is emotion a factor?

Emotion is definitely being used as a tactic to win the political battle. But the emotional arguments presented have absolutely NOTHING to do with finding out whether or not Global Warming is actually happening:

  1. "Various species will be made extinct by the effects of Global Warming
    (Argument for pity)."
  2. "Global Warming will raise sea level several feet, inundating coastal cities
    (Argument for pity)."
  3. "The entire country of Kiribati will disappear if Global Warming raises sea levels
    (Argument for pity)."
  4. "The glaciers in the mountains will melt, removing the source of fresh water for many areas
    (Argument for pity)."
  5. "Changes in weather patterns will cause more droughts
    (Argument for pity)."

None of these are probative toward finding out whether or not Global Warming is in fact occurring. They are totally useless for that purpose. Instead, all of them are emotional reactions to the predicted results of Global Warming, if it DOES exist. But they are using these emotional arguments to win layman politicians to their cause.

They are effectively demanding that the doctor give them the medicine for one particular disease, before the doctor has diagnosed what (if anything) is wrong with them.

Were scare tactics and political pressures used?

There are instances of each:

  1. Politicians are using the emotional appeals listed above to scare voters into voting for candidates who will "stop" Global Warming.
  2. Politicians, newsmen, and TV personalities are censoring opinions that Global Warming is not real, or has a natural cause.
  3. Skeptics are not allowed to present their cases at Global Warming symposiums.
  4. Some scientists have been threatened with arrest, treason charges, and other government actions, because they claim that Global Warming is not the threat the proponents claim it is.

It almost seems that Global Warming is a religious belief, the way the proponents are behaving.

Additionally, are irrelevant, false, or misleading arguments used?

Yes, other totally irrelevant or false arguments are being made:

  1. "We're still breathing carbon dioxide from the first Model Ts."

    I doubt that. The trees and plants have been continuously removing carbon dioxide.

  2. The statements are not made as positive scientific fact, but as uncertainties. Words such as "can," "could," "might," and "believe" appear in the statements of these "scientists."

    How does belief enter into science? Science should deal with facts, not beliefs. These are Vague predictions.

  3. Instead of presenting science with data that prove their case, they have pundits giving testimonials telling how dire the problem will be if nobody does something about it.

    This is indicative that they don't have any proof. Without proof, they resort to blabbery Appeal to authority, Affirming the consequent.

  4. Many of their predictions are based on computer models.

    Are these the same computer models that can't even get tomorrow's weather right?

  5. Many of them base their views on the statements of some "experts," without bothering to check the veracity of the statements or the qualifications of those experts.

    This is the error of Appeal to authority.

  6. Many of those "experts" are politicians, not scientists.

    They use their authority as an argument (Appeal to authority).

  7. They threw away the data they collected that disproves their case.

    This shows that they are not scientists at all. Scientists should follow the data to where it really leads. Scientists must never change the data to fit their theory (Culling the information).

  8. People who don't share their beliefs in Global Warming were often not allowed to present their side.

    The authorities use the power to prevent dissent (Abuse of power)

  9. The charts presented have no value labels on the axes, and often don't show which trace is which.

    Some charts are tilted to make the trace appear to be steeper, or appear to go the wrong way (Obfuscation).

  10. The "scientists" claim they can't use the rigorous physical science methods, because they totally hide the Global Warming effects.

    This means that the effects are not large enough to be accurately measured. (Irrelevant conclusion).

OTHER THEORIES:

There ARE other theories on causes for Global Warming:

  1. It is a natural cycle:
    • We are coming out of a period of global cooling that began in the 12th century AD. One group3 says we are now leaving a "mini ice age," which started in that century. Historical accounts indicate:
      1. Mt. Ararat is said to have been ice-free before the middle ages.4
      2. Hannibal could not have crossed the Alps with elephants across the glaciers that existed there in the early 20th century.2 Therefore, the glaciers were deposited later.
      3. The Vikings settled southern Greenland because it was ice-free and suitable for farming. That's why they named it "Greenland." But then the climate changed, and they had to abandon their settlements.3
      4. An ancient map of the coastlines of South America and an ice-free Antarctica has been found. If Antarctica has had an icecap for millions of years, how was this map made?5
      5. Records indicate that people starved at the beginning of the 13th century, because the crops they were used to growing would not grow in the colder climate that began in the 12th century.3
    • Several studies show that the sun has increased its output over the last few decades.
      1. Luminosity data indicate that the sun is increasing its output.
      2. Data from Venus, Mars, Europa, and Titan indicate that they are undergoing Global Warming too.
  2. It is a result of human activities other than carbon dioxide:
    • Icebreakers break up the icecaps, making it easier for them to melt.
    • Tourism affects glaciers and other natural areas.
  3. There are other natural causes of warming:
    • Increased volcanic activity, and the gases produced by it.
    • Natural changes in weather patterns.
  4. It is observational error:
    • Errors, such a that "expert" saying that if just the ice on the ocean melted, it would raise sea level.1
    • The errors in the analysis of air trapped in ice.1
    • The low accuracy of thermometers used 300 years ago.
    • Measurements taken at increasingly paved airports showing local temperature increases.
    • Not taking into account the 1901 change in the definition of the Fahrenheit degree.
    • Politicians using Global Warming as a scare tactic distort the truth.
  5. It is a means used by political groups to gain unpopular political changes:
    • Environmentalists and Earth Worshipers want their beliefs enacted into law, to force others to obey their religions.
    • Socialists, unable to get their way at the ballot box, are using environmental issues to get votes.
    • Democrats use the issue to get votes and vilify their opponents.
    • Statists and Humanists use the issue to get more government control over everything.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Whether or not Global Warming does in fact exist has not been demonstrated. If there is real proof out there, where is it?
  2. The "evidence" that has been released so far is not probative evidence. It is indicative of either Global Warming or some other causes that have not yet been identified, including random chance. Affirming the Consequent can never be used to prove anything.
  3. There are many theories of global warming with causes that have nothing to do with the activities of man. Evidence exists to support these theories.
  4. The release of bad science makes it harder to believe any real science having to do with Global Warming, if and when it becomes available.
  5. The political scare tactics also make Global Warming less believable.
  6. The attempts to silence the opposition also make Global Warming less believable. It looks like someone is pulling a fast one.
  7. As long as people are using Global Warming for ulterior motives (winning elections, achieving political or religious goals, gaining socialism, or selling products), people are going to be suspicious of anything tied to Global Warming.
  8. The fact that many people are pushing for Global Warming legislation before there is proof indicates that ulterior motives are present.

REFERENCES

  1. Tom Brokaw special on Global Warming.
  2. History Channel: How the Earth was Made.
  3. History Channel: The Little Ice Age
  4. History Channel: Finding Noah's Ark
  5. History Channel: Ancient UFOs